|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
07-30-2012, 08:15 AM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
Except when an AR wasn't an "Assault Weapon", like when the bayonet lug and flash suppressor was removed.
So, under the "assault Weapons Ban", which one is an "AR-15 Assault Weapon" and which one is just an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle?
|
Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.
Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?
-spence
|
|
|
|
07-30-2012, 02:12 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.
Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?
-spence
|
This is demonstrative of you not knowing what you're talking about when it comes to this subject matter.
An "assault weapon" as federally defined during the AWB:
"Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)"
Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
08-01-2012, 09:03 AM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.
Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?
-spence
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Since you say that "under the assault weapon ban they both were", then you tell us what two features in the above list are on the top-pictured gun. If you can't, then under the AWB, it is not an 'assault weapon' - plain and simple.
|
Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?
I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.
|
|
|
|
08-01-2012, 09:23 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Are going to let us know why both those pictured rifles would be 'assault weapons' under the AWB or just gloss over it because yet another one of holier-than-thou remarks was inappropriate due to you being incorrect?
I'll give you a hint: having a magazine and a synthetic stock to make it black and scary looking doesn't actually make a rifle an assault weapon, as defined in the federal AWB.
|
I didn't even look at the pictures
-spence
|
|
|
|
08-01-2012, 10:13 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I didn't even look at the pictures
-spence
|
That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it. 
|
|
|
|
08-01-2012, 01:02 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,500
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
That's as close to a "JohnnyD, you were right" as I'll get... so I'll take it. 
|
I was just joking.
My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.
-spence
|
|
|
|
08-01-2012, 01:13 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I was just joking.
My understand is that the ban wasn't on the current state of the weapon but if it could be modified to meet the conditions of the law. So taking off the flash suppressor and changing the stock wouldn't change an AR 15's legal status under the AWB.
-spence
|
Your understanding is incorrect. It is on the current components on the rifle. If you take the pistol grip off, a collapsible stock can be put on. Replace the threaded barrel with one that doesn't have threads and you can put a grenade launcher on.
Take a look at the image I posted at 12:38 for more details.
|
|
|
|
07-30-2012, 02:30 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Upper Bucks County PA
Posts: 234
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Under the Assault Weapons ban they both were.
Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?
-spence
|
Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.
Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components: A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".
The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.
Now, federally, neither are.
|
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
|
|
|
07-30-2012, 02:53 PM
|
#9
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 5,238
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
Functionally they are identical, that's why the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a farcical useless law that only banned cosmetic items.
Legally, only one of those semi-automatic rifles was deemed an "Assault Weapon" . . . Under the 1994 law the criteria was if a semi-automatic rifle was able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following components: A) Folding or telescoping stock
B) Pistol grip
C) Bayonet mount
D) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
E) Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those which are mounted externally)
The top photo is a non-assault weapon AR-15 (post-ban) with a detachable magazine and was legally offered for sale during the "Assault Weapons ban" because it WAS NOT AN ASSAULT WEAPON! One could also buy extended mags that were manufactured before Sept 13, 1994 for this rifle and be compliant with the "Assault Weapons Ban".
The bottom picture is a AR-15 that was considered an "Assault Weapon" between Sept 13, 1994 and Sept 13, 2004.
Now, federally, neither are.
|
I think there is an echo in here. Well put! 
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.
|
| |