Skip to main content

View Diary: I Need a Permit to Own Bottle Rockets in Pennsylvania, but Not for a Military-Grade Assault Rifle (94 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry to keep saying this but, you cannot... (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, ban nock
    Hidden by:
    Sharon Wraight

    buy an ASSAULT RIFLE without a Class III Federal License requiring a Federal backround check, a tax stamp per weapon and about a $10,000.00 minimum per gun purchase price. What you are refering to is a semi automatic rifle. Period.

    The term 'assault weapon' was made up by the anti gun lobby sometime in the early 90s and means little to nothing outside of the so called mind of Diane Feinstein.

    •  Cut it out with the derailment and obsession over (9+ / 0-)

      technical minutiae.  That's just another NRA inspired ploy to distract from the fact that yes we have a gun problem in this country.

      •  I am not an NRA menber not is this minutiae... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        If you don't know what your asking for you can expect to get nothing. Legislation does not come from a 'wish list' of some kind that says: Ban all Guns! Even DiFi who should have learned her lesson from the last 'assault weapons ban' is still having a hard time figuring this out and she should be an expert by now. Not knowing at least a modicum of information just makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

      •  Not technical minutia (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IreGyre, brasilaaron, ban nock, JesseCW, sk4p

        It is a material error of fact. You can argue for tighter regulation of pit bulls without calling them werewolves. You can argue for tighter regulation of Bushmasters without pretending that they are military grade or using an inflammatory propaganda term.

        It is rejecting reality that derails a discussion.

        So refocus. The diarist has an insightful comparison. Explore it. Guns are deadlier than bottle rockets but also easier for the user to control. Guns can be used to kill as many people as an accident at a large fireworks display. Should we require the equivalent of a pyrotechnician license to own a Bushmaster? To take it out in public? Fair question!

      •  There has to be a clearer, less open to (2+ / 0-)

        interpretation term or description than "assault rifle", or any law that attempts to ban them will run aground on semantics.

        A law based on maximum rates of fire and quantities of ammunition expended in given, relevant units of elapsed time under precisely defined conditions would have a better chance of success.

        Moderation in most things.

        by billmosby on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:42:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  can you commit assault with it? (2+ / 0-)

          can you commit assault on multiple people with very little effort?  If yes, it should probably be called an assault weapon.

          •  Again, semantics... (0+ / 0-)

            The legal definition of assault generally differs from what we humans often think of assault. I am not a lawyer, but perhaps the one who wrote this is:

            At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

            An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

            Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

            See the link for the rest of it. By the legal definition, I think a baseball bat would be considered an assault weapon, because you could commit assault with it.

            In the context of lawmaking, simple phrases just get you into trouble.

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:26:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As for the multiple people part of your (0+ / 0-)

            question, that would let baseball bats off the hook. But probably not a 6-shot revolver, depending on who is defining "multiple".

            Moderation in most things.

            by billmosby on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:28:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  NRA activists will continue spewing their talking (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diomedes77, Miggles

        points no matter what.  Data be dammed, all they care about is their sacred 27-word scripture and their sacred idols.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:41:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  this is great...I get HRed for pointing out... (0+ / 0-)

        a fact by a person who wants to repeal the Second Ammendment. Very adult.

    •  Try telling that to the parents in Newtown (4+ / 0-)

      or the families of the firemen and police officers in Webster.

    •  BULLSHIT, it is an assault weapon. (8+ / 0-)

      I was taught in my military training to shoot tons of well-aimed rounds and change magazines quickly with it---all the while on semi-automatic. Rarely, did I ever fire my M16A2, M4, or M16A4 in burst mode in training, and I never fired it in burst mode in combat.

      Because you make the distinction that an ASSAULT RIFLE must be a select-fire weapon with your bullshit minutia, then these semi-only rifles should be called ASSAULT WEAPONS, and they should be banned.

      No short barrels, no folding stocks, no spring loaded magazines with more than 5 rounds, no easy drop and replace mechanisms for magazines. These restrictions would make a good start for the banning of assault weapons.

      I would like to see the banning of magazine loaded pistols as well. Only revolvers for civilians.

      You can defend yourself perfectly well with revolvers and shotguns, and hunting is better with long rifles anyway.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:18:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you - but I also think Australia (5+ / 0-)

        hit on a great concept.

        I'm not saying we need laws necessarily as strict as theirs, but that they had one very, very good idea.

        We need tiers.

        Revolvers need to be harder to get than shotguns.  You need to meet a higher standard, including involving local law enforcement in the decision.

        Maybe historic magazine fed weapons like the Colt 1911 can be allowed for people who are actually involved in competition shooting with them - provided they meet a very high bar for secure storage of their weapon and have completed a certified training program.

        We can work details once we agree to broad outlines.

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:05:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't disagree with some of your reccomendations (0+ / 0-)

        I am not sure how a folding stock has much to do with how these weapons are used since most don't have them and they are used in less than one percent of all gun violence. I don't see fixed mags or revolvers only for civilians getting passed anytime soon. Hi Cat mags do have to go but since most people are shot with hand guns and I can get a revolver with eight shots, I am not sure how much that would help. Many here are reacting to a mass killing that while terribly tragic is not the way most people die from guns.

    •  Funny, that's how they're advertised by the (6+ / 0-)


      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:21:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The error within your logic (3+ / 0-)

      Technically, you are using the term as legislatively defined as "assault weapon".

      However, as with most things, the definition is subject to change and can be legally changed per the rules of the senate/house with passage.

      But in relation to what is or constitutes an assault rifle, we have to remember that far too many weapons are easily altered into weapons that would fit several of the tests by which the US Military judges foreign combatants are carrying assault based weaponry.

      Simple changes to several semi-automatic rifles to make them fully automatic turn them into weapons classified by us, when exporting arms to other countries, as classed weapons.

      While we can argue about the rationale of the terms, we also have to understand what is up for grabs.

      In the end, those who want to have all weapons removed are basically making an argument that moves into the hands of the NRA, who will easily dispose of such arguments.

      On the other hand, the sale of ammunition and weaponry that is so easily altered is largely opposed.   These are the fine points that do need to be made.

      You are making the argument "this isn't an assault weapon" based on legal and export definitions.  Despite alterations easily about that make it so.   But you forget the fact that should we decide to determine something is legally classified as an assault weapon, it suddenly -is-.   That is the nature of vocabulary and definitions.

      The operational difference is such that in order to fall under the Title II of the National Firearms Act (1934) and be classed legally that's all that matters is the difference from semi to full.

      So, while you may think you're making a cute point, what you are really doing is pointing out the nature and importance of the law to further define this difference.

      Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

      by Chris Reeves on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 11:55:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Really? That's your best argument? (2+ / 0-)

      Make fun of Feinstein and pull something out about whether we are talking about assault this or that?

      You need better talking points.

    •  False. 'Assault rifle' definition incl semi-auto. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, WakeUpNeo


      assault rifle: noun
      1. a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
      2. a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.
      Origin: 1970–75
      Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE
      : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.
      First Known Use of ASSAULT RIFLE: 1972
      American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed. ©2000, Updated 2009, quoted in FreeDictionary:
      assault rifle: n. Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

      The phrase was in use by the 1970s (not 1990s).

      Not every dictionary includes this definition, but reputable ones do. This is all that is needed for any of us to use the phrase in reference to semi-automatic rifles, especially those modeled after military versions.

      Repeatedly trying to redefine the meaning of a word (or phrase) that is commonly accepted by our DailyKos community (and most progressives), and appears in standard dictionaries, for your own agenda, is a discourse that is disruptive and damaging to the community. (See e.g. Roger Ailes' attempts to redefine 'liberal' or 'socialist'.) This is not worthy of debate; it should be deleted from the discussion.

      'Assault rifles' as commonly used in the context of gun-violence debates can indeed refer to semi-automatic rifle. This is not a point that is meaningfully debatable (see the dictionaries cited).

      Btw, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is someone whom the vast majority of DailyKos supports, in her moves to reduce gun-violence.

      Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

      by Sharon Wraight on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:58:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so that's your logic for HRing me? (0+ / 0-)

        I can find as many definitions to disprove (starting with Wikis and going onward) so because of a difference in research texts I should be HRed? Thanks. Anyone with a little gun expirence will tell you the difference but, instead of looking for only proof to fit your thesis why not look at all of the evidence.  Oh, I know, because you want to repeal the Second Ammendment.

      •  BTW, Meriam Webster is incorrect in that... (0+ / 0-)

        the deffinition of 'assault rifle' can be traced back to 1944 or so with the invention of the strumgewehr.

        •  Do you have a link or citation? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          that uses the phrase "assault rifle," pre-1972? I'd like to see it -- and your or I can forward it to Meriam-Webster.

          The etymology in a definition refers to the first use of the term, not the first use of the object (by another name).


          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:34:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unfortunatly, I am a techno peasent... (0+ / 0-)

            and psaaing along links is beyond my nacent computer capability. Most historians will point to the origin of the rifle itself (as you point out) and the Wiki link for 'assault rifle' will do this as well. Most history books I have read on the subject of WWII will use this term and time as the invention of the modern assault rifle. I will look for a reference as to when the TERM was first used. I suppose the question is do we need a translation? Sturmgewehr is not literally translated into assault rifle.

          •  I would still like to know why you HRed me? (0+ / 0-)
          •  I am correcting myself. The German word Sturm... (0+ / 0-)

            CAN be directly translated itno English as 'assault' and gewehr means rifle. First used in can send to Meriam Webster now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (55)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (31)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Environment (18)
  • Media (16)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site