Gun Control & RKBA

Straw Man

(6,764 posts)

51. Eh?

Sat Aug 6, 2016, 05:23 AM

Aug 2016

An assault weapon is a semi auto or burst fire weapon with a high cyclic rate of fire and removable magazine.

Not full-auto? And when have burst-fire weapons ever been legal without NFA licensing? There has always been a legal distinction between semi-auto and full-auto/burst. No points for trying to conflate them.

Cyclic rate of fire is a measure of a machine's capabilities, and as such applies only to full-auto weapons. The rate of fire of semi-auto weapons is determined by the speed at which a human can repeatedly pull the trigger. Obviously it varies widely.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

144 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's call them what they are: [View all] The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 OP

I can appreciate your thoughts on these matters. But this is a culture war... Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #1

Ditto... virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #2

My pony real point is that language should serve to clarify The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #3

I agree, and "assault weapons" was purposefully used to obfuscate. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #10

Thanx for the graphics. Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #9

the big idea discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #4

But mass killing is already as illegal as anything could be. The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #5

basic answers discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #6

I'm jonseing for a Henry Big Boy in ..357 The Green Manalishi Jul 2016 #7

Sounds pretty nice discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #8

I prefer to think of it as a firearm who appreciates craftsmanship and gejohnston Jul 2016 #13

How many rounds does the .357 magazine hold? Maybe 1 more with .38 sp? aikoaiko Aug 2016 #15

Usually 1 fewer .357 than .38 Spl, at least in my Uberti lever action '92 DonP Aug 2016 #16

So, 103 people shot in an Orlando night club with an AR 15 derivative. flamin lib Jul 2016 #11

Wrong again. Straw Man Jul 2016 #12

Not to mention the military went away from full auto Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #14

Nope. The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #18

Really? God that's pathetic. How far will gun people go to defend their fetish. flamin lib Aug 2016 #19

I agree discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #21

Facts, please. Straw Man Aug 2016 #25

10 rounds? Didn't you claim to have more knowledge about guns... Marengo Aug 2016 #30

See 24. nt flamin lib Aug 2016 #36

If you are talking about cyclic rate, you're not talking about an AR. benEzra Aug 2016 #35

You are wrong, I've done it flamin lib Aug 2016 #37

Even bump-firing, an AR-15 can't touch the cyclic rate of an M16 benEzra Aug 2016 #42

No. You have not done it. Straw Man Aug 2016 #55

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #61

Pardon my intrusion discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #56

Jerry Miculek, a professional athlete widely regarded as the fastest shooter in the world, benEzra Aug 2016 #76

Now, wanna' call me a liar? Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #75

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #59

Why do you considdr the M1 as "the last trench gun"? Marengo Aug 2016 #87

Trench warfare was a thing of the past by the time the M1 was developed (late 1930's) friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #94

That's what I was wondering. By the time the M1 was adopted, the Army was concentrating... Marengo Aug 2016 #95

"trench gun": discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #96

I've only seen the term used to describe combat shotguns. I'd like to understand the context... Marengo Aug 2016 #97

AFAIK "trench gun" never refers to a rifle discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #98

This message was self-deleted by its author jmg257 Aug 2016 #20

ballistic damage from .30-06 in CQ... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #22

Yeah, 8 vs 10 rounds per clip. Was mixing Enfield with Garand. Thanks for the correction. nt flamin lib Aug 2016 #24

The M1 is clip fed, whereas the Enfield is magazine fed. There really isn't any excuse... Marengo Aug 2016 #31

"I daresay that I know more about guns...than most gun nuts here on DU" friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #34

I daresay that is a dubious claim. Marengo Aug 2016 #47

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #60

Only for bonefide gun nutz. The clip on the M1 is a box loaded outside the rifle. flamin lib Aug 2016 #38

No, this is basic technical terminology which someone of your supposed expertise... Marengo Aug 2016 #46

No, Marengo, this deflection over minutia and an attempt to ad honemiem flamin lib Aug 2016 #48

What "losing argument"? Correcting your erroneous terminology? It's extremely difficult for me... Marengo Aug 2016 #49

You're still deflecting and attacking me instead of addressing the basic premise. nt flamin lib Aug 2016 #65

I'm addressing your self professed status as someone highly knowledgeable of firearms... Marengo Aug 2016 #85

"If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #67

Why do you refer to the M1 as a trench gun? Marengo Aug 2016 #70

No shit. Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #78

In that particular venue, the Orlando shooter could have shot 103 people with a full-sized pistol, benEzra Aug 2016 #79

Still wondering why you refer to the M1 as a "trench gun"? Marengo Aug 2016 #140

I wouldn't be holding your breathe discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #141

You're likely right, but I am genuinely curious having owned several M1s over the years... Marengo Aug 2016 #142

Because it's an "Evil Scary Gun Term", and "assault weapon" was already taken.... benEzra Aug 2016 #143

If only the control types could... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #144

I beg to differ. Straw Man Aug 2016 #50

I really want to say thanks for this OP... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #17

You're welcome The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #23

recoil is the rub jimmy the one Aug 2016 #26

addendum on recoil jimmy the one Aug 2016 #27

Dihydrogen monoxide hand-waving... benEzra Aug 2016 #32

Double baloney on you and throw in a nany nany booboo too. flamin lib Aug 2016 #39

No, the MA AG didn't touch function at all. benEzra Aug 2016 #45

Eh? Straw Man Aug 2016 #51

Interesting. A good step in making conversation more concrete... The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #88

For me that would mean flamin lib Aug 2016 #90

Which not even Canada, continental Europe, or the UK bans. benEzra Aug 2016 #138

addendum 2 jimmy the one Aug 2016 #28

A very intelligent post (well, series of them) The Green Manalishi Aug 2016 #29

155gr .30-06 is still trading velocity for long range and penetration. Try 110gr. benEzra Aug 2016 #33

Worked okay in Sandy Hook, Dallas, San Bernadino and on and on and on. nt flamin lib Aug 2016 #41

6mm Remington "worked OK" (in your words) at U Texas. 9mm "worked OK" (again your words) at VT. benEzra Aug 2016 #43

Why has NATO and our own Pentagon adapted the 5.56 flamin lib Aug 2016 #71

Just a guess discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #72

"Adapted" or "adopted"? Straw Man Aug 2016 #73

Because they were spec'ing it for use in automatic weapons. benEzra Aug 2016 #74

I have... Puha Ekapi Aug 2016 #93

Mainly weight Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #77

Weight is a big issue now, but that was less of an criterion before body armor was general-issue. benEzra Aug 2016 #81

Thanks Duckhunter935 Aug 2016 #82

And who says ... Straw Man Aug 2016 #53

Now that we have finished the big dick contest of who knows how much flamin lib Aug 2016 #40

For short range, how about a Garand scaled down for a less powerful cartridge. benEzra Aug 2016 #44

Address the fucking question. Stop with the red herring and deflection. nt flamin lib Aug 2016 #66

The red herrings and deflection in this thread are not coming from your interlocutors: friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #68

My, my. Straw Man Aug 2016 #52

Everyone has them. beevul Aug 2016 #99

The type of gun is not the problem... Sancho Aug 2016 #54

I have many questions for you discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #57

Because it's a waste of time to "define" the type of guns... Sancho Aug 2016 #62

More of my many questions discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #63

I have been very careful to suggest that nothing is 100% foolproof... Sancho Aug 2016 #64

More discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #69

License a right? beevul Aug 2016 #100

Nothing unconstitutional...carry permits are legal. Sancho Aug 2016 #101

"At a time of increasing gun violence in America" Gun crime has decreased markedly in the US friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #106

Nothing to do with crime...gun VIOLENCE... Sancho Aug 2016 #107

How can gun violence not be a crime, unless one counts paper targets, clay pigeons... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #108

Many examples...here's one.... Sancho Aug 2016 #109

The *number of media accounts* is on the rise, not the rate. That is what is declining. friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #111

that has been dropping too. gejohnston Aug 2016 #112

I would like to address this but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #110

You were talking about a license to own, not a license to carry. Big difference. beevul Aug 2016 #113

Nope...I never mentioned a license to own.... Sancho Aug 2016 #114

Possession and use is an extension of ownership. beevul Aug 2016 #116

The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal. Sancho Aug 2016 #117

So what? beevul Aug 2016 #118

You make my point... Sancho Aug 2016 #119

Not so much. beevul Aug 2016 #120

Again, you make my point... Sancho Aug 2016 #121

No, I really don't. beevul Aug 2016 #123

So disagree with carry permits? Sancho Aug 2016 #124

Not desiring prior restraint on an enumerated right =/= "(a) desire to allow dangerous people... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #126

Carry permits are prior restraint... Sancho Aug 2016 #128

I have no problem with carry permits so long as they are given on an objective basis... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #130

A license is a version of a carry permit... Sancho Aug 2016 #131

Your licensing proposal is flawed, IMO, because of the idea "you can have one IF... friendly_iconoclast Aug 2016 #134

Newsflash... beevul Aug 2016 #135

Red herring. beevul Aug 2016 #133

How would you get the gun control lobby to sign up to that, or be constrained by it? benEzra Aug 2016 #137

Acknowledging your rudeness but asserting a basic right discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #122

This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #58

The big question, does it have the ability to kill a lot of people?????? Motley13 Aug 2016 #80

All civilian repeating firearms have the ability to kill a lot of people if misused. benEzra Aug 2016 #83

There should be no civilian repeating firearms mwrguy Aug 2016 #84

Then don't own any. benEzra Aug 2016 #86

Do you expect anyone to take that seriously? Straw Man Aug 2016 #89

And with one sentence........ pablo_marmol Aug 2016 #91

There should be no repeating... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2016 #92

And these "violent idiots", as you term them: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #102

Hunting? Straw Man Aug 2016 #103

Hunting and self defense are the prime reasons that I have seen cited guillaumeb Aug 2016 #104

True but irrelevant. Straw Man Aug 2016 #105

Then maybe... beevul Aug 2016 #115

Responding tp your signature line rather than your post: guillaumeb Aug 2016 #125

Although major cities have had plenty of success identifying the small percent responsible jmg257 Aug 2016 #127

I added a bit to your response. guillaumeb Aug 2016 #129

I thought there were like 8-10,000 gun homicides a year? jmg257 Aug 2016 #132

Around 75%-90% of murderers have prior arrest records, benEzra Aug 2016 #139

Imagine that. N/T beevul Aug 2016 #136