Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[AURaptor 1,137]

Shooter didn't use an AR 15

End of discussion

[aujeff11 6,243]

Shooter didn't use an AR 15

End of discussion

What did he use? And why does that end the discussion?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Cannot blame Barry

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_575e4801e4b0ced23ca879bb

I can.

Barry still won't say radical or militant Muslim.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Cannot blame Barry

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_575e4801e4b0ced23ca879bb

I can.

Barry still won't say radical or militant Muslim.

oh boo... Don't be a radical Trump Moronican

[Strychnine 1,808]

Which I am clearly not. I agree with the NRA in that I disagree vehemently with banning any category of firearm, primarily because I do not believe it to be the solution or even practically possible in a way that would actually produce results. I disagree with the NRA in that they automatically oppose any gun legislation as their default position.

I never said it was as simple as keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, I am saying that is where we need to start (as in that should be our goal) if we are going to discuss firearm legislation of any sort. Personally, I think part of the problem with the background check system is that it relies solely on criminal convictions in order to disqualify people from purchasing a firearm, and is designed to operate more quickly than accurately. Licensing is a good starting point to me. It is easier to buy a firearm than it is to obtain a driver's license, much less purchase and subsequently register a vehicle, and I have always thought that was ridiculous. It can be something as simple as an endorsement or symbol on a driver's license, but something that signifies you have gone through an exhaustive background check that I do think should include an interview or two with family members, coworkers, and acquaintances. Firearms are simply too easy to purchase, through dealers or private sellers, and I think that is much more of a problem than whether or not someone can purchase or possess an AR-15.

I didn't mean that you were as brainless as the sheep or anything like that. I was saying it's better to tackle the problems than just to pretend that we don't have a gun violence problem.Not many posters are as even-handed as you are. I have no problems with the licensing requirements, certifications even better, as long as the process is as rigorous as you say it will be.

I suspect the most recent shooter in Orlando probably would not have passed the kind of exhaustive background check I am talking about. Personally, I do think that anyone on a terrorism watch list, or no-fly list, should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That said, someone's presence on such lists is something they should be able to appeal in the event they have been listed in error, and they should not be able to purchase a firearm until they have they have cleared up whatever got them on the list in the first place.

In all honesty, technology could have gone a long way toward preventing that man from purchasing a firearm, if the government was any good at using it. It is 2016, there is no reason that local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies should not be linked together and sharing important information that should have prevented that shooter from purchasing a firearm. Most people would be cleared through such a system. The people that do not should be looked at thoroughly before being allowed to purchase a firearm. He was in a gray area in that I think he was no longer listed, but his attempt to purchase a firearm should have raised a red flag that delayed his ability to do so. I have a feeling that once an agent or two interviewed him, his family, and perhaps his ex, they would have decided to not let him purchase a firearm.

Then again, a background check system is useless when private sales can circumvent it, regardless of how thorough it is.

[homersapien 12,172]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...

We aren't "blaming the gun" :-\ We are blaming a culture and legal system that makes is so easy for terrorists and/or crazy people to acquire military grade weaponry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/17/gun-purchases-legal-for-those-on-us-terror-watchlists.html

[homersapien 12,172]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

The Maximum effective rate of fire the M4 is 45 rounds per minute at semi automatic....Which is the same as the AR at Semiautomatic. Pay attention

At burst, the max auto is 90 rpm....Not even close to being 10 times over the rate of the AR 15. Again, I noted the AR doesnt have burst, even though some people choose to manipulate their weapons in order to increase the rate of fire.

At sustained, 12-15 rpm.

If you don't consider M4's assault rifles, then the debate is pointless. Because it is obvious the purpose of the weapons...

The M4 is by definition, an assault rifle. The select-fire switch makes it so. If the M4 was semi-auto only, then it would not be. The M1 Garand was a semi-auto rifle. The M14 is an assault rifle. The M2 carbine is an assault rifle. They may have removed the full-auto in favor of the burst-fire, but that was more for sustained control and ammo conservation than for any other reason. That's why they have SAW's for covering and suppressing fire. But the AR has never been an assault rifle and never will be, if you use the military definition of an assault rifle.

Do you know how many times I used the Burst feature on my M4? Zero times other than a couple times at bootcamp. Does that mean I was really just using a long gun and not an assault rifle when I engaged the enemy with my M4 at semi-automatic fire? Who cares. It worked very well for war and that is what matters.

Just because you didn't use it doesn't change the fact that it was there. The military still doesn't consider a rifle without the selective fire feature an assault rifle. There are a ton of semi-auto sporting rifles out there. The AR15 was developed for the civilian market in the same way that the M1A was. People liked the military version, but the government wouldn't let a selective fire rifle be sold in the civilian market. Same thing with the AR. It is not an assault rifle. Neither is the M1A

That sort of semantical argument - which is based on a minor detail at any rate - is weak tea.

Both the AR and the M1 are military designs with features that allow for fast re-loading for the exact purpose of killing as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.

[homersapien 12,172]

Clearly semi-auto fire. Good thing he didn't have an assault rifle! :-\

[homersapien 12,172]

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

[homersapien 12,172]

In all this talk about banning sporting rifles, or assault rifles, or whatever you want to call them, no one has mentioned how to enact such a ban. My three NFA weapons (automatic) are worth over $100,000. My collection of semi-auto AK-47's and AR-15's is probably worth over $10,000. Does anyone think I am just going to hand those over for little or no compensation? Do the millions of currently owned AR-15's get grandfathered?

Conservatives are never going to vote for the cost of buying all of these banned rifles. No owner of any of these rifles will ever support a ban that does not include appropriate compensation or grandfathering (if you can get them to support a ban at all). The NRA, and all gun advocacy groups, will fight it tooth and nail. Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?

The bottom line to me is that the type of firearms this killer used are ultimately irrelevant. The important thing is that he had no business possessing a firearm of any type, whether it be an AR-15 or a single-shot .22LR. I do not want such people to possess an AR-15, or a Glock 17, or a shotgun. Why don't we concentrate on that? Proposals crafted with the goal of keeping firearms out of the wrong hands are proposals I can get behind.

"Instead of concentrating on irrational knee-jerk proposals to ban firearms that millions of people own and use without incident, why not concentrate on proposals that might actually be able to gain traction with people like me?"

Makes way too much sense...but doing the real hard work that it takes to make a difference both in terms of tearing down the current LE infrastructure and attitudinal changes required to piss some people off has no political capital for the chattering DC political class. Neither party, lead by their current traditional leadership (or lack of leadership) class will take this approach. They want big broad strokes that can be explained in 10 words or less...result be damned...I mean, if bans worked, Chicago and DC would be a utopian gunless, drugless paradises....

Well for starters, how about banning the sale of guns to people with a record of domestic violence?

[homersapien 12,172]

Shooter didn't use an AR 15

End of discussion

Idiotic post.

[homersapien 12,172]

Cannot blame Barry

http://m.huffpost.co...4b0ced23ca879bb

I can.

Barry still won't say radical or militant Muslim.

Why is that?

[alexava 6,974]

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

[homersapien 12,172]

Which I am clearly not. I agree with the NRA in that I disagree vehemently with banning any category of firearm, primarily because I do not believe it to be the solution or even practically possible in a way that would actually produce results. I disagree with the NRA in that they automatically oppose any gun legislation as their default position.

I never said it was as simple as keeping firearms out of the wrong hands, I am saying that is where we need to start (as in that should be our goal) if we are going to discuss firearm legislation of any sort. Personally, I think part of the problem with the background check system is that it relies solely on criminal convictions in order to disqualify people from purchasing a firearm, and is designed to operate more quickly than accurately. Licensing is a good starting point to me. It is easier to buy a firearm than it is to obtain a driver's license, much less purchase and subsequently register a vehicle, and I have always thought that was ridiculous. It can be something as simple as an endorsement or symbol on a driver's license, but something that signifies you have gone through an exhaustive background check that I do think should include an interview or two with family members, coworkers, and acquaintances. Firearms are simply too easy to purchase, through dealers or private sellers, and I think that is much more of a problem than whether or not someone can purchase or possess an AR-15.

I didn't mean that you were as brainless as the sheep or anything like that. I was saying it's better to tackle the problems than just to pretend that we don't have a gun violence problem.Not many posters are as even-handed as you are. I have no problems with the licensing requirements, certifications even better, as long as the process is as rigorous as you say it will be.

I suspect the most recent shooter in Orlando probably would not have passed the kind of exhaustive background check I am talking about. Personally, I do think that anyone on a terrorism watch list, or no-fly list, should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That said, someone's presence on such lists is something they should be able to appeal in the event they have been listed in error, and they should not be able to purchase a firearm until they have they have cleared up whatever got them on the list in the first place.

In all honesty, technology could have gone a long way toward preventing that man from purchasing a firearm, if the government was any good at using it. It is 2016, there is no reason that local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies should not be linked together and sharing important information that should have prevented that shooter from purchasing a firearm. Most people would be cleared through such a system. The people that do not should be looked at thoroughly before being allowed to purchase a firearm. He was in a gray area in that I think he was no longer listed, but his attempt to purchase a firearm should have raised a red flag that delayed his ability to do so. I have a feeling that once an agent or two interviewed him, his family, and perhaps his ex, they would have decided to not let him purchase a firearm.

Then again, a background check system is useless when private sales can circumvent it, regardless of how thorough it is.

I agree with your first paragraph. That's the least we can do.

But it seems a little unfair to accuse the government of being incompetent in the face of the political opposition from the NRA and their lackys:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/04/day-after-san-bernardino-republicans-line-up-to-crush-gun-control-efforts

And there's no reason that private sales short of such a background check should not be illegal, even if only partially effective. Make the penalities high enough and it would have an effect.

The government should also offer a buy-back program to anyone who wants to get rid of their assault weapon.

[Strychnine 1,808]

I suspect the most recent shooter in Orlando probably would not have passed the kind of exhaustive background check I am talking about. Personally, I do think that anyone on a terrorism watch list, or no-fly list, should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That said, someone's presence on such lists is something they should be able to appeal in the event they have been listed in error, and they should not be able to purchase a firearm until they have they have cleared up whatever got them on the list in the first place.

In all honesty, technology could have gone a long way toward preventing that man from purchasing a firearm, if the government was any good at using it. It is 2016, there is no reason that local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies should not be linked together and sharing important information that should have prevented that shooter from purchasing a firearm. Most people would be cleared through such a system. The people that do not should be looked at thoroughly before being allowed to purchase a firearm. He was in a gray area in that I think he was no longer listed, but his attempt to purchase a firearm should have raised a red flag that delayed his ability to do so. I have a feeling that once an agent or two interviewed him, his family, and perhaps his ex, they would have decided to not let him purchase a firearm.

Then again, a background check system is useless when private sales can circumvent it, regardless of how thorough it is.

I agree with your first paragraph. That's the least we can do.

But it seems a little unfair to accuse the government of being incompetent in the face of the political opposition from the NRA and their lackys:

http://www.theguardi...control-efforts

And there's no reason that private sales short of such a background check should not be illegal, even if only partially effective. Make the penalities high enough and it would have an effect.

The government should also offer a buy-back program to anyone who wants to get rid of their assault weapon.

Private sales without a background check goes back to my original point about licensing and a real exhaustive background check process (one that does not currently exist) to obtain said license. Private sellers would only need to see the buyer's license. Make selling a firearm to an unlicensed individual a felony.

As for the buy-back program you propose, are you talking about a program for people that no longer want their assault weapon, or a program for people that have to get rid of them because they're banned? If the former, the government cannot match their value with a buy-back program. There are AR-15 (and other rifle) models that cost over $2,000. The same applies if you are banning them and compelling everyone to turn them in. What about my NFA weapons, which are actual automatic weapons? Is the government going to reimburse me for their value, which is in excess of $100,000. There are plenty of people that have assault weapon collections worth well in excess of $10,000, especially with accessories included. That's a lot of investment to expect people to hand over for pennies on the dollar, and a lot of government expense for no real benefit.

The ease with which people that should not have firearms can get firearms is the issue, and that is where anyone proposing gun control should be focusing their efforts if they want to have a chance at succeeding. If you want to talk about assault weapons being moved to an acquisition process a little bit more like that of NFA weapons, then I am willing to listen.

[homersapien 12,172]

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

[homersapien 12,172]

I suspect the most recent shooter in Orlando probably would not have passed the kind of exhaustive background check I am talking about. Personally, I do think that anyone on a terrorism watch list, or no-fly list, should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm. That said, someone's presence on such lists is something they should be able to appeal in the event they have been listed in error, and they should not be able to purchase a firearm until they have they have cleared up whatever got them on the list in the first place.

In all honesty, technology could have gone a long way toward preventing that man from purchasing a firearm, if the government was any good at using it. It is 2016, there is no reason that local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies should not be linked together and sharing important information that should have prevented that shooter from purchasing a firearm. Most people would be cleared through such a system. The people that do not should be looked at thoroughly before being allowed to purchase a firearm. He was in a gray area in that I think he was no longer listed, but his attempt to purchase a firearm should have raised a red flag that delayed his ability to do so. I have a feeling that once an agent or two interviewed him, his family, and perhaps his ex, they would have decided to not let him purchase a firearm.

Then again, a background check system is useless when private sales can circumvent it, regardless of how thorough it is.

I agree with your first paragraph. That's the least we can do.

But it seems a little unfair to accuse the government of being incompetent in the face of the political opposition from the NRA and their lackys:

http://www.theguardi...control-efforts

And there's no reason that private sales short of such a background check should not be illegal, even if only partially effective. Make the penalities high enough and it would have an effect.

The government should also offer a buy-back program to anyone who wants to get rid of their assault weapon.

Private sales without a background check goes back to my original point about licensing and a real exhaustive background check process (one that does not currently exist) to obtain said license. Private sellers would only need to see the buyer's license. Make selling a firearm to an unlicensed individual a felony.

As for the buy-back program you propose, are you talking about a program for people that no longer want their assault weapon, or a program for people that have to get rid of them because they're banned? If the former, the government cannot match their value with a buy-back program. There are AR-15 (and other rifle) models that cost over $2,000. The same applies if you are banning them and compelling everyone to turn them in. What about my NFA weapons, which are actual automatic weapons? Is the government going to reimburse me for their value, which is in excess of $100,000. There are plenty of people that have assault weapon collections worth well in excess of $10,000, especially with accessories included. That's a lot of investment to expect people to hand over for pennies on the dollar, and a lot of government expense for no real benefit.

The ease with which people that should not have firearms can get firearms is the issue, and that is where anyone proposing gun control should be focusing their efforts if they want to have a chance at succeeding. If you want to talk about assault weapons being moved to an acquisition process a little bit more like that of NFA weapons, then I am willing to listen.

Either. And the buyback wouldn't necessarily have to be for their original value, but some discounted value according to how long they have been owned. Considering the amount we already spend on security, I don't think that's unreasonable.

And I don't have a problem with allowing qualified hobbyists to retain such weapons provided they undergo an appropriate background check, register the weapons, and be held responsible if one of them goes missing. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)

I agree with your last paragraph. The commercial retail displays of military weapons in virtually every gun shop is obscene.

[homersapien 12,172]

Here’s What Happened When A Terrorist Attacked LGBT People In A Country With Strict Gun Laws

There’s no right to bear arms in Israel, and the death count in recent terror attacks is much lower than in terror-inspired U.S. mass murders.

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lgbt-israel-guns_us_575f0721e4b0e4fe5143407a

[AURaptor 1,137]

2nd Amendment isn't about " sport or hunting ".

Yeah. It's about 'well regulated militias'.

ISIS is well regulated.

So, you're comparing what our Founders set in the Constitution to those murdering pig ******s ?

Really?

Complete and total fail on your part.

[RunInRed 18,113]

The phrase "radical Muslim/Islamic terrorist" is nothing more than a political football. "Saying it" would accomplish exactly what? Quit dodging the issue ...

[AURaptor 1,137]

The phrase "radical Muslim/Islamic terrorist" is nothing more than a political football. "Saying it" would accomplish exactly what? Quit dodging the issue ...

bull****. It's NONE of that. We called NAZIS by their name. We called Japanese by their name. This is being clear, honest and SPECIFIC, not blaming " Islam ", but drawing a clear distinction between those who choose to live in the 21st century and those who want to relive the 11th century.

If anyone is playing politics here, it's the Left, not everyone else, who isn't so damn afraid to call evil by its name. Sticking fingers in your ears and covering your eyes haven't had 1 damn ounce of impact on what these sub humans are doing. Stop *****-footing around and wake the hell up.

They're not the JV team. They're not a " man caused event " , or " work place violence. "

They are radical, murdering Islamists.

[Strychnine 1,808]

Either. And the buyback wouldn't necessarily have to be for their original value, but some discounted value according to how long they have been owned. Considering the amount we already spend on security, I don't think that's unreasonable.

And I don't have a problem with allowing qualified hobbyists to retain such weapons provided they undergo an appropriate background check, register the weapons, and be held responsible if one of them goes missing. (I'm just thinking out loud here.)

I agree with your last paragraph. The commercial retail displays of military weapons in virtually every gun shop is obscene.

Personally, I think that all firearm purchases should undergo more stringent background checks (IE licensing) and that all weapons should be registered. I cannot get behind holding people responsible for what happens when a weapon goes missing, unless they did not report it missing. I do not make a distinction between assault weapons and any other firearms, because I do not believe one is warranted. I think firearms in general are too easy to obtain. That same shooter could have done plenty of damage in that setting with a pair of Glock 17's.

I do need to make my thoughts on background checks clear: I support a license system that has an application process. When you apply for a firearms license, an exhaustive background check should occur. That check should start with both criminal convictions and arrest records in all 50 states. An application that has arrests for domestic violence, or has had restraining orders filed against them, or has been committed for mental evaluation requires actual human followup. Interviews of family, coworkers, and acquaintances should occur. The same should occur for anyone that is or was on any terrorism related list, or that agencies have had terrorism-related interest in. I like the license system because it makes the issue of whether any firearms are legally possessed, or whether you can purchase one, very easy to ascertain. I would say the license should be renewed annually.

As for the retail displays of assault weapons, AR-15's are the popular choice for the tacticool / mall ninja crowd. The entry level ones are not expensive, and there are all sorts of accessories available. You are just not cool unless you show up at the range with an AR decked out with an EOTech holo and magnifier, foregrip of some kind, laser, tactical flashlight, chest rig, and 3-point sling.

[aujeff11 6,243]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

The Maximum effective rate of fire the M4 is 45 rounds per minute at semi automatic....Which is the same as the AR at Semiautomatic. Pay attention

At burst, the max auto is 90 rpm....Not even close to being 10 times over the rate of the AR 15. Again, I noted the AR doesnt have burst, even though some people choose to manipulate their weapons in order to increase the rate of fire.

At sustained, 12-15 rpm.

If you don't consider M4's assault rifles, then the debate is pointless. Because it is obvious the purpose of the weapons...

The M4 is by definition, an assault rifle. The select-fire switch makes it so. If the M4 was semi-auto only, then it would not be. The M1 Garand was a semi-auto rifle. The M14 is an assault rifle. The M2 carbine is an assault rifle. They may have removed the full-auto in favor of the burst-fire, but that was more for sustained control and ammo conservation than for any other reason. That's why they have SAW's for covering and suppressing fire. But the AR has never been an assault rifle and never will be, if you use the military definition of an assault rifle.

Do you know how many times I used the Burst feature on my M4? Zero times other than a couple times at bootcamp. Does that mean I was really just using a long gun and not an assault rifle when I engaged the enemy with my M4 at semi-automatic fire? Who cares. It worked very well for war and that is what matters.

Just because you didn't use it doesn't change the fact that it was there. The military still doesn't consider a rifle without the selective fire feature an assault rifle. There are a ton of semi-auto sporting rifles out there. The AR15 was developed for the civilian market in the same way that the M1A was. People liked the military version, but the government wouldn't let a selective fire rifle be sold in the civilian market. Same thing with the AR. It is not an assault rifle. Neither is the M1A

http://thehill.com/b...orlando-victims

Democrats are saying enough is enough.

House Democrats staged protests Monday evening in response to a moment of silence on the floor to remember the victims of a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the deadliest in American history.

After Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) led the House in the moment of silence in honor of the 49 people who died in the massacre on Sunday, the chamber erupted into shouting as Democrats expressed frustration over the lack of votes to restrict guns after repeated mass shootings.

"Where's the bill?" Democrats chanted.

"Show some respect!" other Democrats shouted.

Some lawmakers walked out of the House chamber before the moment of silence began in protest, including Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.). Earlier in the day, Himes declared he would not participate in any more moments of silence as a form of protest over the lack of legislative responses to mass shootings.

"The fact is that a moment of silence is an act of respect, and we supported that. But it is a not a license to do nothing," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told reporters off the House floor afterward.

"Members have just had enough of having one minute, a moment of silence on the floor, and then take no action," she said.

After the moment of silence ended, Assistant Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) tried to seek recognition, a request Ryan denied.

Clyburn told reporters that he wanted to speak about the upcoming anniversary — this Friday — of the shooting at a historically black church in his district a year ago in Charleston, S.C.

"I think that we have some appalling silence taking place in this body when we ought to be responding," Clyburn said.

Pelosi chided Ryan for denying Clyburn recognition, calling his move "really disrespectful."

Democratic leaders said they want votes on three specific bills: legislation to close the so-called Charleston loophole, which allowed the shooter in that case to buy a gun after three days even though a background check was not completed; prevent people who are on the FBI's no-fly list from buying guns; and prohibit anyone convicted of a hate crime from purchasing firearms.

It's not the first time Democrats have staged protests in response to a moment of silence after a mass shooting, though it is the first in recent memory sanctioned by their leadership.

Last fall, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) shouted out "Now let's do something!" after a moment of silence for the shooting at an Oregon community college.

Any reasonable gun owner should support what I have in bold. All it takes is meeting halfway, compromising, and providing a means of review for those that feel they don't deserve to be on the no fly lists without taking these complaints all the way to court.

[AuburnNTexas 7,300]

This is probably covered in another thread but I wanted to get specific ...

Personally, I can not fathom a single situation where an ordinary citizens would have any need to purchase and possess a military grade fully automatic assault rifle.

If you disagree, could you please explain why these should be legal to purchase?

I own three automatic weapons, and several semi-automatic weapons (including a few AR's). I enjoy collecting, and I enjoy them immensely at the range. The automatic weapons are usually a great conversation piece.

That AR-15's and AK-47's can be legally purchased is not the problem, just as banning them (which will never effectively happen) will not solve the problem. The problem is not the type of gun that can be bought, it is that the entire process of acquiring a firearm is easier than getting a driver's license. In many states, there is no regulation of private sales of firearms at all.

If the Orlando shooter legally bought the gun last week, maybe there needs to be waiting periods before obtaining the weapons. That subtle deterrence may stop a small percentage of mass shootings, meaning more lives are saved.

I know I've mentioned it in numerous other threads, but I have no problem at all with firearms being more difficult to obtain. If there was a push to classify sporting rifles as NFA weapons, I could possibly be brought on board with that. They would still be obtainable for anyone that should be able to have one, and the process would either deter or exclude people like this particular killer.

The NRA has a default position of fighting any legislation on firearms of any kind, and that is not a position I can agree with. That said, there are millions of sporting rifles in the United States, and that represents millions of people that have a negative opinion on the issue of banning their sporting rifles; I should be counted among them. I do think that we need to take a look at our background check process, and I do think all private sales should be subject to background checks as well. The goal should be keeping all firearms out of the wrong hands.

I agree with better background checks even of private sales. I also think that we need laws that people like this killer should have had a red flag based on the fact that he had been involved in two separate investigations because of things he said to people and on social media so he couldn't buy a gun. We need lots of improvements in our system. How did his father get a Visa to come to the US when he has Social media Blogs supporting the Taliban, his dad isn't allowed in he isn't born here. He went to a Mosque in Orlando a few weeks before where he British Imam who has openly called for killing of Gays was given a Visa and allowed entry into the US. We have a policy with some countries where you are automatically qualified for a visitors Visa if you are from some countries and we don't check you against a list. That Cleric should never have been allowed in the country.

Donald Trump is wrong about saying all Muslims should be blocked from coming into the US but he is right that we need to greatly improve the vetting process. In this case we saw a Cleric with a shady Background from Britain come to US for an inflammatory speech and an Afghan who says he supports the Taliban is allowed to immigrate here.

Problems with Background checks is a sticky issue. Obviously anybody on a watch list should automatically not be able to buy a gun but should have right to find out why they are on watch list. Sometimes innocent people with similar names get put on watch list. Other issue is people receiving help for some types of mental health issues should not be allowed to buy a gun but Doctor Patient confidentiality prevents this from occurring.

Banning this type of weapon would just force a sicko to change weapons. Buy a semi-automatic shotgun saw off part of the barrel modify the 3 shot or 7 shot clip to be a 15 shot clip not legal but you can do your self. Have multiple clips and in a tight space like the club it would actually be a more lethal weapon.

Everybody wants a quick fix it won't happen. better background checks will help expanding to private sales will help, Better vetting of people coming into the country to visit or immigrate will help. Allowing Doctor's to put people being treated on a list not to buy guns without giving up details of what they are being treated for will help. None of this will stop the issue. The San Bernardino shooter got a friend to buy the guns. Everyday people in Chicago are being shot by gang members who could never legally buy a gun. That is why many people believe so strongly in the second amendment as they believe you must be able to protect yourself.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I think the biggest road block to a common sense solution is the over the top hyperbole and rhetoric coming from the Left.

It's what they almost always do, paint the opposition as stupid, inbred , angry, and fearful hayseeds, who don't want " change ".

And, as Reagan so eloquently put it, " The trouble with ( Leftists ) is not that they're ignorant, it's just they know so much which isn't so. "