[mljdeckard]

I really couldn't see where else to add this,

If the rifle used was legal in CT, was it not already CT/AWB compliant? With restricted evil features, no bayonet lug, pinned stock, etc? Why are we letting them call it an 'assault weapon' if it was then, and would be now, legal?

So, when they say he used an 'assault weapon', aren't they already wrong under their own definition?

[md2lgyk]

Of course they are. But gun-banners don't care about the truth.

[jmr40]

Lots of conflicting reports. I think the NRA is taking "the high road" by waiting until more "facts" come out to make a statement. Unlike many who are rapidly taking advanage of this tragedy to push their own agendas.

It is possible it is an older pre-ban rifle that was grandfathered in. If he used a rifle at all. There are conflicting reports that he actually used the handguns and the rifle was found in the car.

I'm waiting for more facts before I develop much of an opinion. We may never get them however.

[eazyrider]

I am as pro gun as anyone but this is a silly debate. Like down here in Texas everything is a coke, even if it's a Dr. Pepper. Everyone knows what your talking about. The only real difference is that our weapons don't have selective fire. Other than that my AR is not a whole lot different than the M16 I had in the military. All I am saying is that it is such a moot point. They are not against assault rifles they are against rifles that can hold 30 rounds and are black. Just like to most people an automatic pistol is automatically a Glock. Or every pistol, they can't define it but they know it when they see it.

Another example would be the difference in alcohol and liquor, I mix up the terminology all the time but who cares, they know what I am talking about.

[Onmilo]

"assault weapon" is a very broad and dangerous term.
Everything from the flintlock Brown Bess musket to the 1911 Colt has been used as an "assault weapon" at one time or another.

"High Capacity Magazine" is another dangerous term.
Right now it is anything over 10 shots, what will it be next time?
Anything over two shots...

[eazyrider]

Facts are not going to cool this down, kids were shot, doesn't matter by what. AR style rifles are the low hanging fruit. Hence the anti's are going to go after them. Hell the rifle could have been left in the house and they would still blame it.

[JShirley]

"Assault weapon" as used by our military refers to one of a couple of rocket launchers. Assault rifles have a known, recognized definition, while assault weapons as used politically in the US is a broad category made up to lump together firearms containing several of a number of "evil" features such as bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and barrel shrouds. Without this (over-) broad category, something like a Tec-9 would never be grouped with a FN-FAL or M1A.

John

[mljdeckard]

Of course, but even under THEIR definition, was it not a 'neutered' non-'assault' weapon?

[stonecutter2]

First off, who is "them" and "they?" The media?

The media has wrongfully identified/categorized firearms for decades. There's no reason they'd suddenly get more responsible about it. They're in such a frenzy I'm surprised they're not calling teddy bears "assault weapons."

It became obvious the first day of reporting on the CT incident that they didn't care a thing about accuracy in what they do anymore. Nearly every single outlet was irresponsible. That's the element of this whole situation that no one seems to really be talking about...

How about we have a cultural discussion about the fact that our "news" agencies report rumor and innuendo, and law enforcement officials can't seem to keep their mouth shut 1 hour after a tragedy, with unsubstantiated information, speaking anonymously to the media?

[Duane M]

On the View yesterday Whoppi Goldberg said the firearm was a weapon of mass destruction.

[Duane M]

Just an after thought. If you shoot me with your BB gun even I would think that was an assault weapon.

[stonecutter2]

On the View yesterday Whoppi Goldberg said the firearm was a weapon of mass destruction.
People really need to chill out, just a bit. WMD? Yeesh.

[mljdeckard]

We must reinstate this 'assault weapons' ban, to protect people from this recent crime, which was committed using a rifle which would still be avaliable after the ban is reinstated.

[mljdeckard]

(By the way, 'whoopi' is a gun owner too.)

[OpelBlitz]

Huh?

[mljdeckard]

Are you asking huh to the original question?

[OpelBlitz]

No, your post - "We must reinstate this 'assault weapons' ban, to protect people from this recent crime, which was committed using a rifle which would still be avaliable after the ban is reinstated."

[Shawn Dodson]

I realized yesterday it wasn't an "assaut weapon" and posted here - http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=689876

It's merely a semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine.

[mljdeckard]

I should have put that in quotes and provided context. Diane Feinstein et al are trying to say that we need to reinstate the ban, but the ban would have allowed this weapon.

[mljdeckard]

And Shawn, before I started this thread, I glanced to see if anyone else had asked the question, I was either scanning to fast or it had dropped off the first page. :) I would not be offended at all if the mods want to merge them.

[razorback2003]

It can be a Winchester model 70 and then it is a 'sniper assault rifle'. It doesn't matter if the gun was used or at his friend's house, it would all be the same to the news. The media is a part of this country's brain washing.

[Tommygunn]

It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.

I'm sorry, but despite whether or not it lacked features that would make it an ...."assault weapon" under Ct. law, it really is, atleast to the extent that any semi auto rifle with replaceable magazines can be said to be one -- and it is being perceived as one by most people.

These semantic games are annoying. During the original AWB in 1994 the Bushmaster ARs (and other brands) were being labeled "assault weapons" and we were told they were "weapons of war," even though they were NOT the later, since the guns issued our soldiers were full auto not semi auto.
I owned -- and still do -- an M-1 Carbine my father brought back from Korea which functions, for all real purposes, just like the Bushmaster that Adam Lanza used Friday. No one said it was an "assault weapon" in 94 or mentioned, really, M-1 carbines.
Yet, having been issued to troops in WW2 & Korea, and early Vietnam, it really can be said to BE a "weapon of war.":evil:
It's all rhetoric.
It's meant to "scare" the uninformed into compliance. Let's not play that game.

[Hokkmike]

In any argument definition of terms is important. In educational debate if both parties agree on definitions then they are set. Other wise a judges decides. In this case the public will be the judge. Unfortunately, most are woefully ignorant of what is and what is not an assault weapon. Bottom line to them, if it looks scary and/or has a lot of add on features then it is.

I am sure that any legislation will be very specific about which weapon are and are not included. It is at this point that getting it right becomes critical. Anti's will stretch it as much as they can. Defenders of the 2A, if there are any left, will need to be careful in the terms and definitions they are willing to accept.

Truly, none - well, maybe VERY few of us, call what a practioner would consider an "assault rifle".

But take note - if they antis decide to go after scoped hunting rifles they will become "sniper rifles". They play dirty!!!

[Shawn Dodson]

These semantic games are annoying. It's not "semantics". The weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon" AS DEFINED BY LAW.

[Steve CT]

I live in CT and own what is commonly (and incorrectly) being referred to as an Assault Rifle/Weapon. CT still functions under the AWB, including the named brands and models, and the characteristics described, with the exception of the magazine capacity. State legislators here regularly attempt to reintroduce the magazine restriction, and just as regularly fail.

The new rhetoric on this is "military style" weapons, which strikes me as pretty tough to define, and given the growth in "AR type" manufacturers since 1994, it will be equally difficult to ban by brand and model. The magazine capacity question is much easier to define, and I expect that to be a much more difficult battle to fight.

[mljdeckard]

I don't even see how they can call ARs 'modern' military weapons, the design is nearly 60 years old.

[Cosmoline]

I am as pro gun as anyone but this is a silly debate. Like down here in Texas everything is a coke, even if it's a Dr. Pepper.

It isn't a silly debate when drinking Dr. Pepper will land you in federal prison, my friend.

Their proposed law is concerned with cosmetic details and is one of the most asinine pieces of legislation ever drafted. It truly does ban something because of a scary shape.

[Cosmoline]

The moderators used to lock these non gun related threads down

Arguing the AWB isn't gun related?

[browningguy]

I think everyone needs to quit making noise about "assault weapon" and "clip". When you are reduced to arguing symantics you have lost the battle.

[moewadle]

you can argue all you want about "it wasn't an assault weapon" but the US government will define what is an assault weapon and try to pass legislation regarding what is defined as an assault weapon by the government. So, argue all you want...it is moot....the government will define it with very tight specifics and then a bill will be introduced into one of the houses of congress. To paraphrase Shakespeare...."an assault weapon by any other name is still an assault weapon."

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

My understanding is that he still could have had 30 round mags because CT doesn't have a mag cap limit.

[Tommygunn]

These semantic games are annoying.

It's not "semantics". The weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon" AS DEFINED BY LAW.

The fact that a law "defines" it does not mean it is outside the purvue of semantics.

[TreeDoc]

They're calling magazines 'clips'. Everytime I hear this, I know right off the bat, they don't know what the hell they're talking about and probably have never even held a gun much less owned one.

[Frank Ettin]

It's not "semantics". The weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon" AS DEFINED BY LAW. Fine. And now that the possibility of a new federal ban is on the table, I'm sure Congress will thank you for the tips on how to write the law to include more types of rifles.

...Their proposed law is concerned with cosmetic details and is one of the most asinine pieces of legislation ever drafted. It truly does ban something because of a scary shape... Well then, maybe Congress will try to answer your objection by writing the law to ban rifles based on function, not cosmetics, i. e., a ban on all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Would that suit you better?

[Zoogster]

While arguing that it was not an AWB can be counterproductive, pointing out they actually need to add more to thier definitions to ban what they want, the OP has a valid point.


Assault Weapon is legislatively defined, it does not actually exist outside of legislation.
It is a scary term that includes various handguns, shotguns, carbines, and rifles.
It is not just the things the layman pictures, even though they may be included.



Assault Weapon is a term successful at expanding restrictions because it has no real definition, but is close enough to the term 'assault rifle' that does have a definition to cause people to think they know what it means, and is simply scary to others because it has 'assault' as its description so much be bad.


In California a 1911 is an assault weapon just by having a threaded barrel. A semi auto pistol with a threaded barrel is an "assault weapon". The term means what the law says it means.


Now of course the danger of arguing one semi-auto rifle is little different from another is that you are basically pointing out what they want to ban is semi-autos.
That is what they did in the UK and Australia, they just call them self-loading instead of semi-auto.

That is why it is important to describe why effective modern firearms are protected and necessary, rather than get caught up in correcting semantics. The 2nd was about keeping the power in the hands of the people and detering tyranny. Detering invasion, and detering the government from turning on its own people.

Also why do the police use such firearms? Or if you only need X rounds to defend yourself, why do the police need Y rounds in the same gun to defend themselves (and they got backup coming and if on the offensive by that point several others with them with loaded weapons, so they should need even fewer rounds per individual. Obviously they have that many because that is what is standard, and is effective and realistic without handicapping yourself.

[Cosmoline]

i. e., a ban on all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Would that suit you better?

I want them to try to ban all detachable mag firearms, or better yet all firearms, because that would impact a much broader range of gun owners and be all the more impossible to pass or implement. The goal is to delay, stymie and demoralize them with facts until they do what they always do and lose interest.

But make no mistake, if we hang I want everyone to hang together. They want to divide "hunters" from the rest of us. We can't let that happen again.

[Grassman]

I think the point of the thread is that the media types don't care that they are totally wrong in their definitions, it's never stopped them in the past.

[SEE IT LIKE A NATIVE]

They never "lose interest " it is an integral part of the liberal/socialist agenda ! They will use any method to further that agenda ! Kevin

[Springfield0612]

This is the best video I could find of the "AR" "ASSAULT" weapon that was removed from the trunk of the car. I am not sure about the facts assoctiaced with this video so please do not take that I believe everything on the internet I DON'T. But pay attention to the part where they are removing the gun from the trunk. I'll let you decide if it is an AR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo

[browningguy]

It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.

You can call it whatever you want, we shooters tend to be very precise in our terminology, but the rest of the world isn't. Everybody else on the planet is going to call it an assault rifle, regardless of what a few shooters want to call them.

[barnbwt]

I think the point of the thread is that the media types don't care that they are totally wrong in their definitions, it's never stopped them in the past.
The media's job is (and always has been) to conglomerate facts into interesting stories to sell advertisements. They are more than capable of reporting gun issues accurately, honestly, and fairly. They just choose to not do so.

we shooters tend to be very precise in our terminology, but the rest of the world isn't
Actually, the media is fairly precise in its terminology on pretty much any other topic than guns. When's the last time you heard them omit the word "alleged" when describing a suspect? The last time they mistook the NYSE for the NASDAQ? They're both the same thing, right? The enduring "ignorance" of the basics of this topic is intentional, I assure you.

if we hang I want everyone to hang together. They want to divide "hunters" from the rest of us. We can't let that happen again.
Amen, force the fair-weather Fudds to put some of their own skin on the line, and see if they roll over so easily this time.

Assault Weapon is a term successful at expanding restrictions because it has no real definition
"So long as your strategy remains formless, the keenest eye cannot discern it, nor the wise make plans against it" --Sun Tzu

TCB

[OpelBlitz]

Nice usage of that Sun Tzu quote.

[barnbwt]

dupe

[jason41987]

i actually seen the footage of the cop pulling the rifle out of the trunk.. wasnt even an AR-15.. it had a side charging handle and a "drugonov" type thumbhole stock... appeared to me to be a saiga of some sort

[KMatch]

Regarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de3lmAD5kXo
Based on that video, the kid was innocent. The examiner clearly claimed the shootings were a "long gun" and the kid only had hand guns since the only "long gun" was in the locked trunk of a car. It couldn't have been him. I'm quite certain the facts are accurate as our officials and professional examiners are above making any mistakes. Now that I'm done babbling, my point is, this is the type of mis-information we are ALL being judged and prosecuted on.

[KMatch]

appeared to me to be a saiga of some sort

So, if it were, what's the chance of them banning shot guns? I put that up there with banning pro football. That would never happen. It wouldn't matter if it used shot shells. It was black and scary to the media.

And to touch on another poster above mentioning the media is more intelligent on other topics than guns, sorry... As a professional in the car repair field for 30+ years, I promise you, guns aren't the only things they slant, if not outright lie about.

[JERRY]

he used two handguns, an ar15 wasnt used.

[ball3006]

Don't get so bent out of shape over the word "clip". You don't complain about text messages not spelling words correctly but you know what is being said.

My M1 uses clips. And, you can reload the rifle faster than changing a mag in an AR or SK. Many million previous shooters of M1s can vouch for this as German or Japanese in not our language here in the USA.

I am still not clear on if the rifle was used in CT. The media in pushing their agenda, wants the rifle to be used so they say it was, wether or not it was...chris3

[BCCL]

This video of the trunk is a little clearer.

It sure looks to me like a semi-auto shotgun with a pistol grip stock, maybe a Benelli?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLrxSgkqJQc

[JERRY]

there might have been some sort of longarm in the car but the guns used to actually murder where two handguns.

[bikerdoc]

He used a hand gun, and he was a mental defective that should have been dealt with by the system long before this.
Just like the HE,in Colorado, Virginia Tech and Oregon. All were identified long before their acts and the system failed.
Crazy control, not gun control.

[JERRY]

bikerdoc, dont you no nuttin? you caint go round usin lojic and reeson agenst librals.

[bikerdoc]

Sorry Jerry, :)
I just cant stand blaming tools.

BTW Youse aint g0t no good gramer or spelin.:)

[CZguy]

There is no system for dealing with this type of mental illness. That's why the antis always want to blame tools.

It's hard to deal with people problems, and sometimes there are no answers.