***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Chaos Commish]

I don't care if it was an AR-15 or a Bushmaster 6969, he used it to kill kids in the school. I've stated multiple times here that my concern is not the gun, but the high capacity magazines. The only reason I've continued discussing the gun is that you seem to think that regardless which it was, that it was not used in the killing. You are wrong. This is the State Police's official statement, issued not through the media but on the official STATE OF CONNECTICUT WEBSITE.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;

INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

Are you sure it wasn't an AR15? So you weren't wrong? Or were you?Go back and read the original post..

I told you I don't care. I'm concerned with the high capacity magazines. You saying that this "assault-type" rifle and it's high capacity magazine were not used in the attack was the only reason I was discussing guns and then you cited two terrible articles, one from the day of the attack when all manner of media seemed to have erroneous information on every point imaginable and one from some long-winded conspiracy kook. I also made the mistake of trying to get clever and trusting a quote from REDSTATE.COM from December 29th citing the weapon as an AR-15. It turns out it was correctly identified as this .223 within hours, if not minutes, of being misidentified as an AR-15 on the day of the shooting. And, btw, based on the little research I've done, they are essentially the same thing anyway, only the .223 bullets are more deadly. Which makes me wonder why you're so wrapped up in what the gun was called in the press early on, but I digress. There is no question about whether or not there was an "assault-type" weapon used in the attack. Many sources cite the medical examiner as saying the wounds were from a rifle. Lt. J. Paul Vance said the primary weapon used was the rifle. ("BUT HE CALLED IT AN AR-15 AT FIRST [WHICH IT KINDA IS, ONLY MORE DEADLY] SO HE IS NOT CREDIBLE") So, the one cop misidentified a weapon as a weapon that it looks like in the first few hours...that does not discredit the police or the medical examiner and only reenforces why the police don't want to talk until a thorough investigation is completed. But then people will cry about not having information. So one of the downsides of this is that for an hour or two, people might think that the weapon was an AR-15 and not a gun that looks and acts like an AR-15, only is more deadly.Now about those high capacity magazines.

A modified 22 round (.223) which in the shooting community is considered a varmint gun is an "assault-type" weapon? This is a novelty gun, made to look like the AR15, I can buy a pellet gun that looks like an AR15 as well. I gave you the Washington Post, and MSNBC which should have both been enough evidence for you..

And now the "cop" needed to wait till the investigation was over in order to tell the difference between a .223 and a 5.56? It will be plainly stamped into both the weapon and the ammunition..

I told you what it was, you contested that, I proved it to you, and now somehow you have it twisted around.

Impressive. Every sentence is wrong.

Can you explain how this is wrong?

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons. Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Feinstein and her staff must play too much Call of Duty:

ban list by name

 

[zDragon]

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons.

Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

You just compared a .22 to a .223. The statement was the .223 round was a modified .22 round that was considered a varmit round. Why would you expect the modified round to look like the original? Just a little research and you could have found out he was right.

The great majority of subsequent center fire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

When Remington introduced the .223, which one month later was adopted by the U.S. military as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, they intended it for use on varmints and loaded bullets specifically intended for that purpose.

The Military did adopt the round and made it even more popular. The load in the round and the turns in the barrel are different depending on application. Edit: Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge. The sad thing is I'm not even a gun owner and see the lack in your knowledge.

 

[cobalt_27]

I've bought over 50 30+ mags since this nonsense started, and I'm guessing over 3 million mags have been purchased by others. Lol and they won't even be banned is my guess. The fringe right's continual mischaracterization of Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry since sliced bread. LOL!

Fixed that for you.It really has nothing to do with Obama. It's all about the NRA and gun lobby convincing people that there's no difference between talking about sensible solutions that 80% of the country can agree on and some oppressive dictatorship that is going to take away all of your guns and oppress you for eternity.

It may feel good to frame it that way, but you're wrong. NRA fearmongering sparked an uptick in the firearms industry when Obama was originally elected, but it wasn't ridiculous like this. The NRA didn't have to say one word for this run on the industry to happen. In fact they were criticized for being mysteriously silent post Newtown and the run was well under way that weekend. Threats to ban products will always create runs on the product. Or just discontinue Twinkies. Pretty basic supply and demand.

This could be the theme of the thread.The rhetoric that comes out of the pro-gun people in this thread is almost completely divorced from the scuttlebutt of the proposals that are coming out of the Beltway. Obama isn't standing up there saying, "We're going to take away all of your guns." There's talk of trying to limit high-capacity magazines (however you want to define that) and/or reinstituting the assault rifle ban in some fashion. The likelihood of both of these passing is slim. And whatever passes has to go through Boehner's House.

No, Obama isn't forcing anything. People are letting themselves get duped.

The run on the industry isn't about revolvers, bolt or break action single shot firearms. The run is specific to weapons that come with standard magazine capacities over 10 rounds. That which has been threatened is being horded. Very simple. NRA had nothing to do with it. Word spread like wildfire on the internet and the stockpiling commenced.

Speaking of word spreading on the internet, I visited my first gun board a few minutes ago. We're ######.

I used to think fundamentalist Christians were the freakiest nut jobs in this country. But, the gun culture people posting in this thread, splattering YouTube, and rush/hannity have proven to be the most unstable, dogmatic, and frightening group around. Thankfully, there is a chance to legislate the crazy, but...it's disturbing to see it out there (and in here).

 

[tom22406]

Feinstein and her staff must play too much Call of Duty:ban list by name

Just as I suspected,that ##### has lost her ####### mind if she thinks that has any shot at passing.Cue Tim's reply now that she is not after your guns!The reality is they know this won't pass and it's just laying the groundwork for the next mass killing(s) to trot it out again(and again)until they finally get something similar passed.

 

[cobalt_27]

Feinstein and her staff must play too much Call of Duty:

ban list by name

Just as I suspected,that ##### has lost her ####### mind if she thinks that has any shot at passing.Cue Tim's reply now that she is not after your guns!

The reality is they know this won't pass and it's just laying the groundwork for the next mass killing(s) to trot it out again(and again)until they finally get something similar passed.

Ironically, made possible by the gun fetish contingent that fight to keep these things in circulation.So who again is ##### has lost their #######?

 

[MaxThreshold]

I've bought over 50 30+ mags since this nonsense started, and I'm guessing over 3 million mags have been purchased by others. Lol and they won't even be banned is my guess. The fringe right's continual mischaracterization of Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry since sliced bread. LOL!

Fixed that for you.It really has nothing to do with Obama. It's all about the NRA and gun lobby convincing people that there's no difference between talking about sensible solutions that 80% of the country can agree on and some oppressive dictatorship that is going to take away all of your guns and oppress you for eternity.

It may feel good to frame it that way, but you're wrong. NRA fearmongering sparked an uptick in the firearms industry when Obama was originally elected, but it wasn't ridiculous like this. The NRA didn't have to say one word for this run on the industry to happen. In fact they were criticized for being mysteriously silent post Newtown and the run was well under way that weekend. Threats to ban products will always create runs on the product. Or just discontinue Twinkies. Pretty basic supply and demand.

This could be the theme of the thread.The rhetoric that comes out of the pro-gun people in this thread is almost completely divorced from the scuttlebutt of the proposals that are coming out of the Beltway. Obama isn't standing up there saying, "We're going to take away all of your guns." There's talk of trying to limit high-capacity magazines (however you want to define that) and/or reinstituting the assault rifle ban in some fashion. The likelihood of both of these passing is slim. And whatever passes has to go through Boehner's House.

No, Obama isn't forcing anything. People are letting themselves get duped.

The run on the industry isn't about revolvers, bolt or break action single shot firearms. The run is specific to weapons that come with standard magazine capacities over 10 rounds. That which has been threatened is being horded. Very simple. NRA had nothing to do with it. Word spread like wildfire on the internet and the stockpiling commenced.

Speaking of word spreading on the internet, I visited my first gun board a few minutes ago. We're ######.

I used to think fundamentalist Christians were the freakiest nut jobs in this country. But, the gun culture people posting in this thread, splattering YouTube, and rush/hannity have proven to be the most unstable, dogmatic, and frightening group around. Thankfully, there is a chance to legislate the crazy, but...it's disturbing to see it out there (and in here).

I think you're clearly overreacting here. Do we give out awards for high drama in a forum?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons.

Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

You just compared a .22 to a .223. The statement was the .223 round was a modified .22 round that was considered a varmit round. Why would you expect the modified round to look like the original? Just a little research and you could have found out he was right.

The great majority of subsequent center fire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

When Remington introduced the .223, which one month later was adopted by the U.S. military as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, they intended it for use on varmints and loaded bullets specifically intended for that purpose.

The Military did adopt the round and made it even more popular. The load in the round and the turns in the barrel are different depending on application. Edit: Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge. The sad thing is I'm not even a gun owner and see the lack in your knowledge.

And this is why I hate this thread. Ignorance is so blissfull in here. Your first and third quotes are BS, I don't care what the source is. The second quote is irrelavent. I build these rifles. I'm building a 22 and a 223/556 right now. I have to quote this because it's pretty funny.

Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge.

By giving you visuals I was trying to help. I always appreciate them. THESE ARE THE CARTRIDGES you claim I didn't consider -- same link as in my first answer. You can't expect me to explain the loads and ballistics for you. Please observe the cartridges. The difference is so obvious we shouldn't be comparing them. By explaining 22 is rimfire and 223 centerfire I DID CONSIDER THE RIFLES you claim I didn't. The bolt carrying groups are so different the cartridges CAN NOT be modified to work in both types of rifles. Apples and oranges. More like grapes and watermelons if YOU CONSIDER THE CARTRIDGES, which was my point. I wasn't comparing them because they are similar. I guess you don't know what cartridges are or the difference in rim and centerfire rifles. Well now you might.The fact that 223 is used as a varmint round is irrelevant to correcting CH. If that was what you wanted to know about, you should have said so. I've been calling it a varmint round teasing Mad Cow about it in the "buyers" thread for a couple years. I called it a varmint round in the Aurora shooting thread. 223 fragmenting HPs in a 9-1 twist designed to tumble can rip a huge wound channel through a cow and drop it. 22 not so much. Teasing 223 tacticool shooters about their underpowered round is fun. Comparing it to 22 is lame. If you don't get that another way to make the point is in the downrange energy of the cartridges. The military considers 60 ft lbs of energy still lethal. A 22 falls below that at 150-200 yards. The .223 will be over 800 ft lbs of energy at that point, over 10 times the lethal energy of 22. By comparison the .223 is only 2 times weaker than 308 at that distance. So comparing the two ubiquitous NATO rounds is more accurate than comparing 223 to 22. That's why looking at the vastly different case size should have been enough, and I hope Mad Cow doesn't catch me admitting that.

We'll just pass over twist rates which I doubt you understand well anyway. But if you still don't understand the rimfire obstacle, it should be noted 223 never had anything to do with a modification of 22. Remington developed it from the 222.

The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge...

When the US military was looking for a new smallbore rifle cartridge, Remington started with the .222 Remington, and stretched it to increase powder capacity by about 20% in 1958 to make the .222 Remington Magnum. The greater powder capacity put the velocities between the standard .222 Remington and the 22-250. The cartridge was not accepted by the military, but it was introduced commercially. In 1963, the 5.56 x 45 mm, also based on a stretched .222 Rem. case, was adopted along with the new M16 rifle. The 5.56 mm cartridge had a capacity only slightly less (5%) than the .222 Rem. Mag. The new 5.56x45mm cartridge was commercialized by Remington, the .223 Remington.

It was developed specifically for the US military and LATER adapted to varmint hunting. CH questioned how this could be an "assault" gun, well the military gave this caliber that designation when it was accepted for the new M16, aka the AR 15; and AR does not stand for Assualt Rifle, but Armalite Rifle. ARs are semi automatics, M16s select fire.I've been having this conversation with military folks since 1972. Using its history as a varmint round as a talking point to calm the evil assault rifle bs is something I've been doing here on this board for over a year and in real life for two decades. I'm the guy who pointed out 40+ people shot with it in Colorado survived. The varmint thing isn't what I corrected. If you misunderstood something you shouldn't have attacked me, and I would have helped you comprehend. Everything I said kindly answering your question is correct. Anything disputing it on the internet is false. Trust that and you'll be okay, sonny. I didn't cover everything and I don't plan to.

If you must respond, please start by answering what is your point? I think that would be helpful because I sure cannot tell. If your point is that Google has educated you beyond me then knock yourself out. I won't be discussing lame 22 and 223 comparisons after this post. hth

 

[cobalt_27]

I've bought over 50 30+ mags since this nonsense started, and I'm guessing over 3 million mags have been purchased by others. Lol and they won't even be banned is my guess. The fringe right's continual mischaracterization of Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry since sliced bread. LOL!

Fixed that for you.It really has nothing to do with Obama. It's all about the NRA and gun lobby convincing people that there's no difference between talking about sensible solutions that 80% of the country can agree on and some oppressive dictatorship that is going to take away all of your guns and oppress you for eternity.

It may feel good to frame it that way, but you're wrong. NRA fearmongering sparked an uptick in the firearms industry when Obama was originally elected, but it wasn't ridiculous like this. The NRA didn't have to say one word for this run on the industry to happen. In fact they were criticized for being mysteriously silent post Newtown and the run was well under way that weekend. Threats to ban products will always create runs on the product. Or just discontinue Twinkies. Pretty basic supply and demand.

This could be the theme of the thread.The rhetoric that comes out of the pro-gun people in this thread is almost completely divorced from the scuttlebutt of the proposals that are coming out of the Beltway. Obama isn't standing up there saying, "We're going to take away all of your guns." There's talk of trying to limit high-capacity magazines (however you want to define that) and/or reinstituting the assault rifle ban in some fashion. The likelihood of both of these passing is slim. And whatever passes has to go through Boehner's House.

No, Obama isn't forcing anything. People are letting themselves get duped.

The run on the industry isn't about revolvers, bolt or break action single shot firearms. The run is specific to weapons that come with standard magazine capacities over 10 rounds. That which has been threatened is being horded. Very simple. NRA had nothing to do with it. Word spread like wildfire on the internet and the stockpiling commenced.

Speaking of word spreading on the internet, I visited my first gun board a few minutes ago. We're ######.

I used to think fundamentalist Christians were the freakiest nut jobs in this country. But, the gun culture people posting in this thread, splattering YouTube, and rush/hannity have proven to be the most unstable, dogmatic, and frightening group around. Thankfully, there is a chance to legislate the crazy, but...it's disturbing to see it out there (and in here).

I think you're clearly overreacting here. Do we give out awards for high drama in a forum?

Right. Says the guy who goes into histrionics over every reasonable measure proposed to reduce the volume of mass murder machinery.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Feinstein and her staff must play too much Call of Duty:ban list by name

Just as I suspected,that ##### has lost her ####### mind if she thinks that has any shot at passing.Cue Tim's reply now that she is not after your guns!The reality is they know this won't pass and it's just laying the groundwork for the next mass killing(s) to trot it out again(and again)until they finally get something similar passed.

We'll see. She seemed pretty sure she could get this passed. It WILL pass in CA where the supermajority left is happy to sign any gun control legislation. I remember when other said just what you said in 94.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't care if it was an AR-15 or a Bushmaster 6969, he used it to kill kids in the school. I've stated multiple times here that my concern is not the gun, but the high capacity magazines. The only reason I've continued discussing the gun is that you seem to think that regardless which it was, that it was not used in the killing. You are wrong. This is the State Police's official statement, issued not through the media but on the official STATE OF CONNECTICUT WEBSITE.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;

INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

Are you sure it wasn't an AR15? So you weren't wrong? Or were you?Go back and read the original post..

I told you I don't care. I'm concerned with the high capacity magazines. You saying that this "assault-type" rifle and it's high capacity magazine were not used in the attack was the only reason I was discussing guns and then you cited two terrible articles, one from the day of the attack when all manner of media seemed to have erroneous information on every point imaginable and one from some long-winded conspiracy kook. I also made the mistake of trying to get clever and trusting a quote from REDSTATE.COM from December 29th citing the weapon as an AR-15. It turns out it was correctly identified as this .223 within hours, if not minutes, of being misidentified as an AR-15 on the day of the shooting. And, btw, based on the little research I've done, they are essentially the same thing anyway, only the .223 bullets are more deadly. Which makes me wonder why you're so wrapped up in what the gun was called in the press early on, but I digress. There is no question about whether or not there was an "assault-type" weapon used in the attack. Many sources cite the medical examiner as saying the wounds were from a rifle. Lt. J. Paul Vance said the primary weapon used was the rifle. ("BUT HE CALLED IT AN AR-15 AT FIRST [WHICH IT KINDA IS, ONLY MORE DEADLY] SO HE IS NOT CREDIBLE") So, the one cop misidentified a weapon as a weapon that it looks like in the first few hours...that does not discredit the police or the medical examiner and only reenforces why the police don't want to talk until a thorough investigation is completed. But then people will cry about not having information. So one of the downsides of this is that for an hour or two, people might think that the weapon was an AR-15 and not a gun that looks and acts like an AR-15, only is more deadly.Now about those high capacity magazines.

A modified 22 round (.223) which in the shooting community is considered a varmint gun is an "assault-type" weapon? This is a novelty gun, made to look like the AR15, I can buy a pellet gun that looks like an AR15 as well. I gave you the Washington Post, and MSNBC which should have both been enough evidence for you..

And now the "cop" needed to wait till the investigation was over in order to tell the difference between a .223 and a 5.56? It will be plainly stamped into both the weapon and the ammunition..

I told you what it was, you contested that, I proved it to you, and now somehow you have it twisted around.

Impressive. Every sentence is wrong.

Can you explain how this is wrong?

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons. Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

The 223 was designed after the 22, based on the Geneva convention as a more humane round..Obviously they don't look the same.. Why, because it's a modified version.. More powder, higher velocity, etc..

It's not a round meant to kill..

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't care if it was an AR-15 or a Bushmaster 6969, he used it to kill kids in the school. I've stated multiple times here that my concern is not the gun, but the high capacity magazines. The only reason I've continued discussing the gun is that you seem to think that regardless which it was, that it was not used in the killing. You are wrong. This is the State Police's official statement, issued not through the media but on the official STATE OF CONNECTICUT WEBSITE.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;

INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

Are you sure it wasn't an AR15? So you weren't wrong? Or were you?Go back and read the original post..

I told you I don't care. I'm concerned with the high capacity magazines. You saying that this "assault-type" rifle and it's high capacity magazine were not used in the attack was the only reason I was discussing guns and then you cited two terrible articles, one from the day of the attack when all manner of media seemed to have erroneous information on every point imaginable and one from some long-winded conspiracy kook. I also made the mistake of trying to get clever and trusting a quote from REDSTATE.COM from December 29th citing the weapon as an AR-15. It turns out it was correctly identified as this .223 within hours, if not minutes, of being misidentified as an AR-15 on the day of the shooting. And, btw, based on the little research I've done, they are essentially the same thing anyway, only the .223 bullets are more deadly. Which makes me wonder why you're so wrapped up in what the gun was called in the press early on, but I digress. There is no question about whether or not there was an "assault-type" weapon used in the attack. Many sources cite the medical examiner as saying the wounds were from a rifle. Lt. J. Paul Vance said the primary weapon used was the rifle. ("BUT HE CALLED IT AN AR-15 AT FIRST [WHICH IT KINDA IS, ONLY MORE DEADLY] SO HE IS NOT CREDIBLE") So, the one cop misidentified a weapon as a weapon that it looks like in the first few hours...that does not discredit the police or the medical examiner and only reenforces why the police don't want to talk until a thorough investigation is completed. But then people will cry about not having information. So one of the downsides of this is that for an hour or two, people might think that the weapon was an AR-15 and not a gun that looks and acts like an AR-15, only is more deadly.Now about those high capacity magazines.

A modified 22 round (.223) which in the shooting community is considered a varmint gun is an "assault-type" weapon? This is a novelty gun, made to look like the AR15, I can buy a pellet gun that looks like an AR15 as well. I gave you the Washington Post, and MSNBC which should have both been enough evidence for you..

And now the "cop" needed to wait till the investigation was over in order to tell the difference between a .223 and a 5.56? It will be plainly stamped into both the weapon and the ammunition..

I told you what it was, you contested that, I proved it to you, and now somehow you have it twisted around.

Impressive. Every sentence is wrong.

Can you explain how this is wrong?

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons. Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

The 223 was designed after the 22, based on the Geneva convention as a more humane round..Obviously they don't look the same.. Why, because it's a modified version.. More powder, higher velocity, etc..

It's not a round meant to kill..

I can't believe Congress wants to ban all these non lethal guns and ammo!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons.

Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

You just compared a .22 to a .223. The statement was the .223 round was a modified .22 round that was considered a varmit round. Why would you expect the modified round to look like the original? Just a little research and you could have found out he was right.

The great majority of subsequent center fire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

When Remington introduced the .223, which one month later was adopted by the U.S. military as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, they intended it for use on varmints and loaded bullets specifically intended for that purpose.

The Military did adopt the round and made it even more popular. The load in the round and the turns in the barrel are different depending on application. Edit: Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge. The sad thing is I'm not even a gun owner and see the lack in your knowledge.

And this is why I hate this thread. Ignorance is so blissfull in here. Your first and third quotes are BS, I don't care what the source is. The second quote is irrelavent. I build these rifles. I'm building a 22 and a 223/556 right now. I have to quote this because it's pretty funny.

Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge.

By giving you visuals I was trying to help. I always appreciate them. THESE ARE THE CARTRIDGES you claim I didn't consider -- same link as in my first answer. You can't expect me to explain the loads and ballistics for you. Please observe the cartridges. The difference is so obvious we shouldn't be comparing them. By explaining 22 is rimfire and 223 centerfire I DID CONSIDER THE RIFLES you claim I didn't. The bolt carrying groups are so different the cartridges CAN NOT be modified to work in both types of rifles. Apples and oranges. More like grapes and watermelons if YOU CONSIDER THE CARTRIDGES, which was my point. I wasn't comparing them because they are similar. I guess you don't know what cartridges are or the difference in rim and centerfire rifles. Well now you might.The fact that 223 is used as a varmint round is irrelevant to correcting CH. If that was what you wanted to know about, you should have said so. I've been calling it a varmint round teasing Mad Cow about it in the "buyers" thread for a couple years. I called it a varmint round in the Aurora shooting thread. 223 fragmenting HPs in a 9-1 twist designed to tumble can rip a huge wound channel through a cow and drop it. 22 not so much. Teasing 223 tacticool shooters about their underpowered round is fun. Comparing it to 22 is lame. If you don't get that another way to make the point is in the downrange energy of the cartridges. The military considers 60 ft lbs of energy still lethal. A 22 falls below that at 150-200 yards. The .223 will be over 800 ft lbs of energy at that point, over 10 times the lethal energy of 22. By comparison the .223 is only 2 times weaker than 308 at that distance. So comparing the two ubiquitous NATO rounds is more accurate than comparing 223 to 22. That's why looking at the vastly different case size should have been enough, and I hope Mad Cow doesn't catch me admitting that.

We'll just pass over twist rates which I doubt you understand well anyway. But if you still don't understand the rimfire obstacle, it should be noted 223 never had anything to do with a modification of 22. Remington developed it from the 222.

The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge...

When the US military was looking for a new smallbore rifle cartridge, Remington started with the .222 Remington, and stretched it to increase powder capacity by about 20% in 1958 to make the .222 Remington Magnum. The greater powder capacity put the velocities between the standard .222 Remington and the 22-250. The cartridge was not accepted by the military, but it was introduced commercially. In 1963, the 5.56 x 45 mm, also based on a stretched .222 Rem. case, was adopted along with the new M16 rifle. The 5.56 mm cartridge had a capacity only slightly less (5%) than the .222 Rem. Mag. The new 5.56x45mm cartridge was commercialized by Remington, the .223 Remington.

It was developed specifically for the US military and LATER adapted to varmint hunting. CH questioned how this could be an "assault" gun, well the military gave this caliber that designation when it was accepted for the new M16, aka the AR 15; and AR does not stand for Assualt Rifle, but Armalite Rifle. ARs are semi automatics, M16s select fire.I've been having this conversation with military folks since 1972. Using its history as a varmint round as a talking point to calm the evil assault rifle bs is something I've been doing here on this board for over a year and in real life for two decades. I'm the guy who pointed out 40+ people shot with it in Colorado survived. The varmint thing isn't what I corrected. If you misunderstood something you shouldn't have attacked me, and I would have helped you comprehend. Everything I said kindly answering your question is correct. Anything disputing it on the internet is false. Trust that and you'll be okay, sonny. I didn't cover everything and I don't plan to.

If you must respond, please start by answering what is your point? I think that would be helpful because I sure cannot tell. If your point is that Google has educated you beyond me then knock yourself out. I won't be discussing lame 22 and 223 comparisons after this post. hth

Building a gun, owning a gun, or shooting guns, does not make you an expert.. The 22 round was the basis for the design.. Was designed as a minimal casualty round..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't care if it was an AR-15 or a Bushmaster 6969, he used it to kill kids in the school. I've stated multiple times here that my concern is not the gun, but the high capacity magazines. The only reason I've continued discussing the gun is that you seem to think that regardless which it was, that it was not used in the killing. You are wrong. This is the State Police's official statement, issued not through the media but on the official STATE OF CONNECTICUT WEBSITE.

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284&A=4226

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **

STATE POLICE IDENTIFY WEAPONS USED IN SANDY HOOK INVESTIGATION;

INVESTIGATION CONTINUES

In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance

Are you sure it wasn't an AR15? So you weren't wrong? Or were you?Go back and read the original post..

I told you I don't care. I'm concerned with the high capacity magazines. You saying that this "assault-type" rifle and it's high capacity magazine were not used in the attack was the only reason I was discussing guns and then you cited two terrible articles, one from the day of the attack when all manner of media seemed to have erroneous information on every point imaginable and one from some long-winded conspiracy kook. I also made the mistake of trying to get clever and trusting a quote from REDSTATE.COM from December 29th citing the weapon as an AR-15. It turns out it was correctly identified as this .223 within hours, if not minutes, of being misidentified as an AR-15 on the day of the shooting. And, btw, based on the little research I've done, they are essentially the same thing anyway, only the .223 bullets are more deadly. Which makes me wonder why you're so wrapped up in what the gun was called in the press early on, but I digress. There is no question about whether or not there was an "assault-type" weapon used in the attack. Many sources cite the medical examiner as saying the wounds were from a rifle. Lt. J. Paul Vance said the primary weapon used was the rifle. ("BUT HE CALLED IT AN AR-15 AT FIRST [WHICH IT KINDA IS, ONLY MORE DEADLY] SO HE IS NOT CREDIBLE") So, the one cop misidentified a weapon as a weapon that it looks like in the first few hours...that does not discredit the police or the medical examiner and only reenforces why the police don't want to talk until a thorough investigation is completed. But then people will cry about not having information. So one of the downsides of this is that for an hour or two, people might think that the weapon was an AR-15 and not a gun that looks and acts like an AR-15, only is more deadly.Now about those high capacity magazines.

A modified 22 round (.223) which in the shooting community is considered a varmint gun is an "assault-type" weapon? This is a novelty gun, made to look like the AR15, I can buy a pellet gun that looks like an AR15 as well. I gave you the Washington Post, and MSNBC which should have both been enough evidence for you..

And now the "cop" needed to wait till the investigation was over in order to tell the difference between a .223 and a 5.56? It will be plainly stamped into both the weapon and the ammunition..

I told you what it was, you contested that, I proved it to you, and now somehow you have it twisted around.

Impressive. Every sentence is wrong.

Can you explain how this is wrong?

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons. Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

The 223 was designed after the 22, based on the Geneva convention as a more humane round..Obviously they don't look the same.. Why, because it's a modified version.. More powder, higher velocity, etc..

It's not a round meant to kill..

I can't believe Congress wants to ban all these non lethal guns and ammo!

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I've bought over 50 30+ mags since this nonsense started, and I'm guessing over 3 million mags have been purchased by others. Lol and they won't even be banned is my guess. The fringe right's continual mischaracterization of Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry since sliced bread. LOL!

Fixed that for you.It really has nothing to do with Obama. It's all about the NRA and gun lobby convincing people that there's no difference between talking about sensible solutions that 80% of the country can agree on and some oppressive dictatorship that is going to take away all of your guns and oppress you for eternity.

It may feel good to frame it that way, but you're wrong. NRA fearmongering sparked an uptick in the firearms industry when Obama was originally elected, but it wasn't ridiculous like this. The NRA didn't have to say one word for this run on the industry to happen. In fact they were criticized for being mysteriously silent post Newtown and the run was well under way that weekend. Threats to ban products will always create runs on the product. Or just discontinue Twinkies. Pretty basic supply and demand.

This could be the theme of the thread.The rhetoric that comes out of the pro-gun people in this thread is almost completely divorced from the scuttlebutt of the proposals that are coming out of the Beltway. Obama isn't standing up there saying, "We're going to take away all of your guns." There's talk of trying to limit high-capacity magazines (however you want to define that) and/or reinstituting the assault rifle ban in some fashion. The likelihood of both of these passing is slim. And whatever passes has to go through Boehner's House.

No, Obama isn't forcing anything. People are letting themselves get duped.

The run on the industry isn't about revolvers, bolt or break action single shot firearms. The run is specific to weapons that come with standard magazine capacities over 10 rounds. That which has been threatened is being horded. Very simple. NRA had nothing to do with it. Word spread like wildfire on the internet and the stockpiling commenced.

Speaking of word spreading on the internet, I visited my first gun board a few minutes ago. We're ######.

I used to think fundamentalist Christians were the freakiest nut jobs in this country. But, the gun culture people posting in this thread, splattering YouTube, and rush/hannity have proven to be the most unstable, dogmatic, and frightening group around. Thankfully, there is a chance to legislate the crazy, but...it's disturbing to see it out there (and in here).

I think you're clearly overreacting here. Do we give out awards for high drama in a forum?

Right. Says the guy who goes into histrionics over every reasonable measure proposed to reduce the volume of mass murder machinery.

I think he'd be ok with limiting automobiles..

 

[Chaos Commish]

The 223 was designed after the 22, based on the Geneva convention as a more humane round..Obviously they don't look the same.. Why, because it's a modified version.. More powder, higher velocity, etc..It's not a round meant to kill..

You read some crazy stuff. Armalite chambered the original ARs in .222 Remington. The military declined because it wasn't lethal enough and it was plenty lethal already. The .222 mag burned up barrels so the declined again. The .223 met all needs. Geneva Convention? Link? My link

 

[Chaos Commish]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

Wrong again. The military was very disappointed in the cartridge through the early stages of Vietnam specifically because too many bad guys were surviving being shot. If anything it was a design flaw, but like I said in the long reply, 800 ft lbs of energy at 150 yards is extremely deadly.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Also CH, Apple Jack was 100% correct about the Bushmaster killing the children. You're buying into a bad conspiracy theory. The idea is they lied about the assault rifle to ban it, but both his handguns had over 10 round mags, so there was no need to lie. DiFi is going after those handguns too, btw.

And please read this about the 5.56. Then understand there is miniscule difference in it and the .223.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The 223 was designed after the 22, based on the Geneva convention as a more humane round..

Obviously they don't look the same.. Why, because it's a modified version.. More powder, higher velocity, etc..

It's not a round meant to kill..

You read some crazy stuff. Armalite chambered the original ARs in .222 Remington. The military declined because it wasn't lethal enough and it was plenty lethal already. The .222 mag burned up barrels so the declined again. The .223 met all needs. Geneva Convention? Link? My link

got a link for the red? I know you don't.. In your own link..

ArmaLite engineers Jim Sullivan and Bob Fremont scaled down the AR-10 to fit the hot varmint cartridge of the day, the .222 Remington.

It's a round designed to wound, rather than kill.. I thought this was common knowledge.. You fancy yourself as a gun guy, and you don't know this?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

Wrong again. The military was very disappointed in the cartridge through the early stages of Vietnam specifically because too many bad guys were surviving being shot. If anything it was a design flaw, but like I said in the long reply, 800 ft lbs of energy at 150 yards is extremely deadly.

No, sorry, you're wrong.. This is common knowledge for gun folks.. It's a round meant to wound rather than kill..And I never said the gun wasn't used in the school, I pointed out that there was a possibility that it wasn't..

 

[mad sweeney]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

That's true, but even I know you're wrong. THink about that. Did they ever find the third suspect Mr Educated On The Topic?

 

[Chaos Commish]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

Wrong again. The military was very disappointed in the cartridge through the early stages of Vietnam specifically because too many bad guys were surviving being shot. If anything it was a design flaw, but like I said in the long reply, 800 ft lbs of energy at 150 yards is extremely deadly.

No, sorry, you're wrong.. This is common knowledge for gun folks.. It's a round meant to wound rather than kill..And I never said the gun wasn't used in the school, I pointed out that there was a possibility that it wasn't..

If there's one thing pretty clearly established recently is that "common knowledge for gun folks" isn't often real knowledge at all.

Btw, pretty much every statement I've made has already been backed up in a link provided. Read.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons.

Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

You just compared a .22 to a .223. The statement was the .223 round was a modified .22 round that was considered a varmit round. Why would you expect the modified round to look like the original? Just a little research and you could have found out he was right.

The great majority of subsequent center fire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

When Remington introduced the .223, which one month later was adopted by the U.S. military as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, they intended it for use on varmints and loaded bullets specifically intended for that purpose.

The Military did adopt the round and made it even more popular. The load in the round and the turns in the barrel are different depending on application. Edit: Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge. The sad thing is I'm not even a gun owner and see the lack in your knowledge.

As I said about 1000 posts ago, the Marine Corps told us that the usefulness in the 5.56 cartridge vs human opponents was not in its killing power. The idea is that it takes 2 to care for 1 wounded. By having a round that is likely to tumble on impact, ricochet off bones and fragment easily, it creates a more complex wound channel requiring more care and treatment and likely longer recovery than a through and through wound from the previous, much more powerful 30-06, taxing the opponent's resources much more than by simply killing an enemy combatant. Feinstein and her clan would have you believe that this is a devastating killing machine, even labeling them as "weapons of mass destruction" today.Again, the purpose of the pistol grip is control of the weapon. It allows a better hold and retention of the rifle.

The flash hider/supressor is to deflect the muzzle flash out of the sight picture line.

The telescoping stock allows the same rifle to fit people of different sizes. A 6'4" guy can extend the stock for him or shorten it for his 5'2" wife.

The barrel shroud keeps someone from burning their hands on a hot barrel.

Now, a semi-auto weapon that resembles a fully-automatic weapon is bad too?

A bullet button is a device used in Feinstein's home state. We still have an AWB and if you have an AR or some other magazine fed gun with two "evil features," you could make that gun compliant by making it so the magazine was only detachable by use of a tool. These are essentially covers over the magazine release button that has a small hole in it that can allow a bullet to be the tool, since they are readily available and if lost, another one is right there. It GREATLY reduces the efficiency of a magazine change and makes it a two-handed operation. Trust me... nobody is going to commit a shooting spree with a bullet button.

Threaded barrel - for mounting a supressor. Commonly called a silencer, these in no way reduce the rapport of a gunshot to what it sounds like in the movies. It will however, save some of your hearing when shooting indoors (home defense or indoor ranges). Yes, hearing protection is still advised when using suppressors, and your neighbors will still hear it. More Hollywood fear.

Semi-automatic pistols that have a magazine attaching point outside of the pistol grip. What the Feinstein does that have to do with anything? Oh yeah. Scary Hollywood bad guys.

Any semi-automatic rifle that has a detachable magazine and a rocket launcher. Glad we cleared that one up for Cobalt.

Good thing this bill excludes retired law enforcement. That sure shoots Tim's claims of who does and does not need them to ####. Just in case they want to live out some PTSD at the golf course during a suicidal bout of depression, it's OK. They are more likely to need it than me because they used to have to chase dangerous criminals back when they had a job.

I'd be willing to bet that more Americans have been killed in the last year by bolt-action rifles than high-capacity semi-automatic rifles. The most common rifle used against US troops in the middle east is the Mosin Nagant which can be bought at Big 5 for roughly $100. An AR platform rifle cost between $700 and $2500 before the panic buying.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

Wrong again. The military was very disappointed in the cartridge through the early stages of Vietnam specifically because too many bad guys were surviving being shot. If anything it was a design flaw, but like I said in the long reply, 800 ft lbs of energy at 150 yards is extremely deadly.

No, sorry, you're wrong.. This is common knowledge for gun folks.. It's a round meant to wound rather than kill..And I never said the gun wasn't used in the school, I pointed out that there was a possibility that it wasn't..

If there's one thing pretty clearly established recently is that "common knowledge for gun folks" isn't often real knowledge at all.

Btw, pretty much every statement I've made has already been backed up in a link provided. Read.

There were numerous links provided for you about the 22 and varmint and so on.. you sluffed them off.. even your own link mentioned it..You have not provided a link that says the military preferred it as a more lethal round. Why not? Because that is incorrect..

It was found that it was just as effective if not more because they didn't have to kill, just wound, and for that, they were able to gain other advantages like recoil, weight, ect.. Tactically it's smarter to take down more people and get them off the battle field. Wounded men are a encumbrance for there brothers.. Dead men not as much.. Wounding and immobilizing a soldier has more economic and tactical effect on your enemy than killing him..

Maybe I was wrong when I said this is common knowledge amongst "gun folks" Maybe its common knowledge to military and tactical gun guys..

 

[Chaos Commish]

Cookiemonster, read this.

 

[cobalt_27]

I've bought over 50 30+ mags since this nonsense started, and I'm guessing over 3 million mags have been purchased by others. Lol and they won't even be banned is my guess. The fringe right's continual mischaracterization of Obama has been the best thing for the gun industry since sliced bread. LOL!

Fixed that for you.It really has nothing to do with Obama. It's all about the NRA and gun lobby convincing people that there's no difference between talking about sensible solutions that 80% of the country can agree on and some oppressive dictatorship that is going to take away all of your guns and oppress you for eternity.

It may feel good to frame it that way, but you're wrong. NRA fearmongering sparked an uptick in the firearms industry when Obama was originally elected, but it wasn't ridiculous like this. The NRA didn't have to say one word for this run on the industry to happen. In fact they were criticized for being mysteriously silent post Newtown and the run was well under way that weekend. Threats to ban products will always create runs on the product. Or just discontinue Twinkies. Pretty basic supply and demand.

This could be the theme of the thread.The rhetoric that comes out of the pro-gun people in this thread is almost completely divorced from the scuttlebutt of the proposals that are coming out of the Beltway. Obama isn't standing up there saying, "We're going to take away all of your guns." There's talk of trying to limit high-capacity magazines (however you want to define that) and/or reinstituting the assault rifle ban in some fashion. The likelihood of both of these passing is slim. And whatever passes has to go through Boehner's House.

No, Obama isn't forcing anything. People are letting themselves get duped.

The run on the industry isn't about revolvers, bolt or break action single shot firearms. The run is specific to weapons that come with standard magazine capacities over 10 rounds. That which has been threatened is being horded. Very simple. NRA had nothing to do with it. Word spread like wildfire on the internet and the stockpiling commenced.

Speaking of word spreading on the internet, I visited my first gun board a few minutes ago. We're ######.

I used to think fundamentalist Christians were the freakiest nut jobs in this country. But, the gun culture people posting in this thread, splattering YouTube, and rush/hannity have proven to be the most unstable, dogmatic, and frightening group around. Thankfully, there is a chance to legislate the crazy, but...it's disturbing to see it out there (and in here).

I think you're clearly overreacting here. Do we give out awards for high drama in a forum?

Right. Says the guy who goes into histrionics over every reasonable measure proposed to reduce the volume of mass murder machinery.

I think he'd be ok with limiting automobiles..

You are capable of terrible analogies. Actual logic and thinking still elude you. As always.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are capable of terrible analogies. Actual logic and thinking still elude you. As always.

Sorry you were wrong about the 22, and the varmint, and the lethality of the round, etc.. I'll leave now before I force you to fling more insults as a result of your frustration with continually being wrong..

 

[cobalt_27]

You are capable of terrible analogies. Actual logic and thinking still elude you. As always.

Sorry you were wrong about the 22, and the varmint, and the lethality of the round, etc.. I'll leave now before I force you to fling more insults as a result of your frustration with continually being wrong..

I never commented on any of this.Go to your Rush play book to figure out your next debate fail.You've really got nothing but your paranoia and fetish to support repeat Sandy Hook massacres.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Cookiemonster, read this.

Which part? 1/2 of the posts and sources say one thing, and the other 1/2 say the opposite. Kind of reminds me of this thread but on a different topic. My opinion stays the same. If lethality were the focus, the 30-06 was a much better choice. If it were about lightening the load and armor piercing capability, the .22WMR or .17HMR would do that. .223/5.56 are good and accurate at distance (6-9 hits out of 10 was common at our 500 yard range), meet a minimum threshold for power and are lighter than larger, more powerful cartridges. If killing were the objective, then why did they teach us to shoot center mass instead of head shots? Sure, they chant "One shot, one kill," over and over in boot camp, but they use a .22 on steroids and point of aim is a debilitating shot, not a kill shot.

 

[Apple Jack]

You are capable of terrible analogies. Actual logic and thinking still elude you. As always.

Sorry you were wrong about the 22, and the varmint, and the lethality of the round, etc.. I'll leave now before I force you to fling more insults as a result of your frustration with continually being wrong..

I never commented on any of this.Go to your Rush play book to figure out your next debate fail.You've really got nothing but your paranoia and fetish to support repeat Sandy Hook massacres.

Is he arguing whether or not the rounds involved in Sandy Hook were lethal?

 

[cobalt_27]

You are capable of terrible analogies. Actual logic and thinking still elude you. As always.

Sorry you were wrong about the 22, and the varmint, and the lethality of the round, etc.. I'll leave now before I force you to fling more insults as a result of your frustration with continually being wrong..

I never commented on any of this.Go to your Rush play book to figure out your next debate fail.You've really got nothing but your paranoia and fetish to support repeat Sandy Hook massacres.

Is he arguing whether or not the rounds involved in Sandy Hook was lethal?

Probably. I dunno. All I know is I wasn't wrong about any of it because it's such a dumb subtopic, I never would have addressed it in the first place.These guys are truly disturbed.

 

[Chaos Commish]

It's the truth.. It's meant to injure.. It is a minimal casualty round, meant to get the opposition off the battlefield. That was the intent behind the design.. It doesn't surprise me you're here to troll anything I write, but here again, you're uneducated on the topic

Wrong again. The military was very disappointed in the cartridge through the early stages of Vietnam specifically because too many bad guys were surviving being shot. If anything it was a design flaw, but like I said in the long reply, 800 ft lbs of energy at 150 yards is extremely deadly.

No, sorry, you're wrong.. This is common knowledge for gun folks.. It's a round meant to wound rather than kill..And I never said the gun wasn't used in the school, I pointed out that there was a possibility that it wasn't..

If there's one thing pretty clearly established recently is that "common knowledge for gun folks" isn't often real knowledge at all.

Btw, pretty much every statement I've made has already been backed up in a link provided. Read.

There were numerous links provided for you about the 22 and varmint and so on.. you sluffed them off.. even your own link mentioned it..You have not provided a link that says the military preferred it as a more lethal round. Why not? Because that is incorrect..

It was found that it was just as effective if not more because they didn't have to kill, just wound, and for that, they were able to gain other advantages like recoil, weight, ect.. Tactically it's smarter to take down more people and get them off the battle field. Wounded men are a encumbrance for there brothers.. Dead men not as much.. Wounding and immobilizing a soldier has more economic and tactical effect on your enemy than killing him..

Maybe I was wrong when I said this is common knowledge amongst "gun folks" Maybe its common knowledge to military and tactical gun guys..

Hopefully these military tactical gun guys who have been managing to kill enemies with a round meant to wound will straighten you out.

 

[timschochet]

I don't really understand the current debate between Chaos Commish and Carolina Hustler. But I know this: after months of reading both of their posts, I completely trust CC and completely distrust Hustler. Both of them have earned their credibility level over time.

 

[zDragon]

Ugh. I hate 90% of this thread, but sure. Here's .223 and 5.56 side by side. There's no difference in the bullets, as in the golden projectile protruding from the case. They shoot identical bullets. The only difference is 5.56 has a microscopically thicker case and can handle a little more pressure from hooter burning propellant/gunpowder. Performance is practically the same. They are both equally common in what this legislation defines as assault weapons.

Here's a 22 alongside a .223 or 5.56 (you cannot tell the difference from a picture), but it is lame to say .223 is a modified 22. Anybody looking at both links can see that. Also, 22 is rimfire, .223/5.56 is centerfire, so 22 cannot be modified to .223.

eta: I meant hotter burning powder but prefer not to correct hooter burning above.

You just compared a .22 to a .223. The statement was the .223 round was a modified .22 round that was considered a varmit round. Why would you expect the modified round to look like the original? Just a little research and you could have found out he was right.

The great majority of subsequent center fire .22's were designed or adapted for use as varmint and small game cartridges. This includes all of the commonly available North American .22's, including the .22 Hornet, .221 Fireball, .218 Bee, .222 Remington, .223 Remington, .22-250 Remington, .224 Weatherby, and .220 Swift.

The 223/5.56mm quickly became popular as a civilian cartridge because of the availability of brass, and the chambering of commercial varmint rifles in that caliber.

When Remington introduced the .223, which one month later was adopted by the U.S. military as the 5.56mm NATO cartridge, they intended it for use on varmints and loaded bullets specifically intended for that purpose.

The Military did adopt the round and made it even more popular. The load in the round and the turns in the barrel are different depending on application. Edit: Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge. The sad thing is I'm not even a gun owner and see the lack in your knowledge.

And this is why I hate this thread. Ignorance is so blissfull in here. Your first and third quotes are BS, I don't care what the source is. The second quote is irrelavent. I build these rifles. I'm building a 22 and a 223/556 right now. I have to quote this because it's pretty funny.

Really if you just go on looks and don't consider the whole build of the actual cartridge and rifle your making a huge mistake and showing a huge lack of knowledge.

By giving you visuals I was trying to help. I always appreciate them. THESE ARE THE CARTRIDGES you claim I didn't consider -- same link as in my first answer. You can't expect me to explain the loads and ballistics for you. Please observe the cartridges. The difference is so obvious we shouldn't be comparing them. By explaining 22 is rimfire and 223 centerfire I DID CONSIDER THE RIFLES you claim I didn't. The bolt carrying groups are so different the cartridges CAN NOT be modified to work in both types of rifles. Apples and oranges. More like grapes and watermelons if YOU CONSIDER THE CARTRIDGES, which was my point. I wasn't comparing them because they are similar. I guess you don't know what cartridges are or the difference in rim and centerfire rifles. Well now you might.The fact that 223 is used as a varmint round is irrelevant to correcting CH. If that was what you wanted to know about, you should have said so. I've been calling it a varmint round teasing Mad Cow about it in the "buyers" thread for a couple years. I called it a varmint round in the Aurora shooting thread. 223 fragmenting HPs in a 9-1 twist designed to tumble can rip a huge wound channel through a cow and drop it. 22 not so much. Teasing 223 tacticool shooters about their underpowered round is fun. Comparing it to 22 is lame. If you don't get that another way to make the point is in the downrange energy of the cartridges. The military considers 60 ft lbs of energy still lethal. A 22 falls below that at 150-200 yards. The .223 will be over 800 ft lbs of energy at that point, over 10 times the lethal energy of 22. By comparison the .223 is only 2 times weaker than 308 at that distance. So comparing the two ubiquitous NATO rounds is more accurate than comparing 223 to 22. That's why looking at the vastly different case size should have been enough, and I hope Mad Cow doesn't catch me admitting that.

We'll just pass over twist rates which I doubt you understand well anyway. But if you still don't understand the rimfire obstacle, it should be noted 223 never had anything to do with a modification of 22. Remington developed it from the 222.

The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge...

When the US military was looking for a new smallbore rifle cartridge, Remington started with the .222 Remington, and stretched it to increase powder capacity by about 20% in 1958 to make the .222 Remington Magnum. The greater powder capacity put the velocities between the standard .222 Remington and the 22-250. The cartridge was not accepted by the military, but it was introduced commercially. In 1963, the 5.56 x 45 mm, also based on a stretched .222 Rem. case, was adopted along with the new M16 rifle. The 5.56 mm cartridge had a capacity only slightly less (5%) than the .222 Rem. Mag. The new 5.56x45mm cartridge was commercialized by Remington, the .223 Remington.

It was developed specifically for the US military and LATER adapted to varmint hunting. CH questioned how this could be an "assault" gun, well the military gave this caliber that designation when it was accepted for the new M16, aka the AR 15; and AR does not stand for Assualt Rifle, but Armalite Rifle. ARs are semi automatics, M16s select fire.I've been having this conversation with military folks since 1972. Using its history as a varmint round as a talking point to calm the evil assault rifle bs is something I've been doing here on this board for over a year and in real life for two decades. I'm the guy who pointed out 40+ people shot with it in Colorado survived. The varmint thing isn't what I corrected. If you misunderstood something you shouldn't have attacked me, and I would have helped you comprehend. Everything I said kindly answering your question is correct. Anything disputing it on the internet is false. Trust that and you'll be okay, sonny. I didn't cover everything and I don't plan to.

If you must respond, please start by answering what is your point? I think that would be helpful because I sure cannot tell. If your point is that Google has educated you beyond me then knock yourself out. I won't be discussing lame 22 and 223 comparisons after this post. hth

Thought I would add the whole quote.

The .222 Remington aka the Triple Deuce/Triple Two/Treble Two is a centerfire rifle cartridge introduced in 1950, and was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge.[2]

Sorry, you lost your credibility already.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Thought I would add the whole quote.

The .222 Remington aka the Triple Deuce/Triple Two/Treble Two is a centerfire rifle cartridge introduced in 1950, and was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge.[2]

Sorry, you lost your credibility already.

This is funnier than your last misunderstanding. You don't understand it, but you strengthened my point, and I'm not explaining it to you because you have comprehension issues.

 

[DaVinci]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Grenade and rocket launchers have always been illegal for civilians. She puts them in there as scare tactics to make this legislation look more urgent than it is. There are some juicy new twists but I'm waiting for the full text.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Thought I would add the whole quote.

The .222 Remington aka the Triple Deuce/Triple Two/Treble Two is a centerfire rifle cartridge introduced in 1950, and was the first commercial rimless .22 (5.56 mm) cartridge made in the United States. The .222 Remington was an entirely new design, not derived from any previously existing cartridge.[2]

Sorry, you lost your credibility already.

This is funnier than your last misunderstanding. You don't understand it, but you strengthened my point, and I'm not explaining it to you because you have comprehension issues.

You said the 223 didn't come from a 22.. there is now a 5th link showing you it does..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

and heat shields, and flash suppressors..It's ridiculous really..

 

[cobalt_27]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

and heat shields, and flash suppressors..It's ridiculous really..

What's ridiculous?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

and heat shields, and flash suppressors..It's ridiculous really..

What's ridiculous?

banning of pistol grips, telescoping stocks, and barrel shrouds etc..

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Have there been a few grenade launcher killings lately? Have I missed them?

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

I'll be surprised if this bill makes it out of committee.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

 

[Boston]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

Because idelogues put their goals over the goals of the public...

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

 

[timschochet]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

The problem is that the opposition on this particular issue refuses to negotiate. They have behaved unreasonably all along. There's not going to be any give and take here, I predict.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

That's not how negotiation works.

Exactly. Put in everything you need, want, and wish for and see what happens.

The problem is that the opposition on this particular issue refuses to negotiate. They have behaved unreasonably all along. There's not going to be any give and take here, I predict.

If that's true, then why not ask for everything you want?

 

[Sand]

The ONLY question we should consider, when it comes to the proposals being discussed, is whether or not they make sense in terms of increasing public safety. That's it. Guns in different societies, the Second Amendment, home invasion, a tyrannical government, the "slippery slope"- this is all useless crap that should have no bearing on the discussion.

I haven't followed this thread all that closely. But if we're discussing proposals to further limit what types of arms people may own, why shouldn't the Second Amendment have some bearing on the discussion?

Because none of the proposals in question would violate the 2nd Amendment.

All reasonable people agree on that point? Like I said, I haven't followed the thread and I don't know exactly what's been proposed, but that would surprise me.

I'll admit that reasonable people differ on whether or not a ban on assault weapons would violate the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think it would, and there is the evidence of a federal AWB ban being in place for 10 years without challenge, as well as many similar state laws. But it is still a debatable point. I haven't focused on it since I regard an assault weapons ban as a stupid idea anyhow. But- I have yet to find a single reasonable voice make the argument that either bans on high capacity magazines, or a removal of the private sales loophole (which are the other 2 big items up for debate) would violate the 2nd Amendment. I have heard a lot of UNREASONABLE people state this. The NRA itself is very tricky, claiming that these measures violate the "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment, without being specific, whatever that means. One single poster here attempted to make an argument, a few pages earlier, that a ban on the magazines MIGHT violate the 2nd Amendment, but the only example he could provide is if the law limited magazines to 1 bullet. And that was the ONLY time in this thread anyone has even attempted to make a specific argument.

There was no challenge as the NRA and other 2nd amendment groups decided SCOTUS was too liberal at the time. If this Feinstein measure passes (and let's face it, it has a snowball's chance) it would very likely get challenged as the court is now more balanced (you know, toward proper Constitutional interpretation, freedom, light, and all that is good and holy).