Washington Post Super Excited To Ban “Assault Weapons”

On the bright side, at least they’re aren’t calling for a full gun ban for private owners

We can stop this American carnage

“WE’RE UNDER fire, we’re under fire. He’s got an automatic weapon,” was the report Saturday morning from one of the first police officers to respond to the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Minutes later, another officer radioed, “We’re taking on AK-47 fire from out the front of the synagogue.” Before the gunman was captured, four police officers were wounded and 11 people had been shot to death.

Once again, a piece of America had been turned into a war zone. Once again, the casualties were innocent people engaged in the rhythms of everyday life — this time, mostly elderly people practicing their religion. Once again, the question must be asked of what it will take — how many more mass shootings, lost lives and devastated communities — before Congress enacts sensible gun control that includes banning weapons designed for war.

War! As far as it can be determined, the rifle used wasn’t automatic, and you’d have to be an idiot to take a semi-automatic weapon to war. And you can do the same thing with the non-assaulty rifles that aren’t on their banned list

The slaughter of little children at Sandy Hook Elementary School should have been enough to persuade Congress to ban assault weapons and enact other common-sense measures. That it wasn’t is both tragedy and disgrace. The carnage that has followed — the Tree of Life shooting being the most recent — has unfortunately failed to stiffen the spines of national lawmakers. But voters next week will have the chance to send their own message. They should elect a Congress that will protect them by enacting long-overdue gun reform that includes getting weapons of war off America’s streets and out of its schools, theaters, churches and synagogues.

First, what other measures? They don’t say, being the final paragraph from the Editorial Board. Based on their previous talking points, universal background checks and stuff wouldn’t work. He passed multiple background checks. They note earlier in the screed “Mass shootings account for a minority of gun fatalities, but the use of assault weapons greatly increases the rates of death and injury as well as the severity of injuries.” Well, what of Chicago, a Democratic Party run city that often gets ignored.

Five were killed and dozens were wounded over the weekend, all from handguns. Six were wounded on Monday. This is the norm for Chiraq, er, Chicago. These are all illegal. Felonies. Just like using an “assault rifle”. Are we to punish all citizens, restrict their Constitutional Rights, for the actions of a few? That is a very, very slippery slope.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

32 Responses to “Washington Post Super Excited To Ban “Assault Weapons””

  1. Jethro says:

    And yet mass murderers rarely choose hunting rifles to kill Americans wholesale.

    Why do you think they choose military-style assault weapons to kill humans in bunches?

    Is it because military-style assault weapons are specifically designed to kill humans in bunches?

    Do you think the murderer at the Tree of Life synagogue would have been able to shoot four heavily armed and body armored police officers if he had a four shot Remington Model 7?

    Do mass murderers choose military-style assault weapons to kill several humans at a time because mass murderers are cowardly losers and the military-style assault weapons finally make them feel like a “man”?

    • dachs_dude says:

      A few points:

      1 Define “Assault Weapon” — There really isn’t a good single definition out there. How do YOU define them? Oh, that’s right. You won’t.

      And yet mass murderers rarely choose hunting rifles to kill Americans wholesale.

      And people who mow down civilians with vehicles rarely use Priuses. Should these be the only vehicles for sale?

      Why do you think they choose military-style assault weapons to kill humans in bunches?

      They kill humans in bunches because they’re insane. Most, if not all, should be institutionalized, as they once were, because they are “a danger to themselves and others”, as was done in the past, when we didn’t have this issue. Also, we didn’t assume you could medicate psychosis back then.

      Is it because military-style assault weapons are specifically designed to kill humans in bunches?

      Weapons are designed to hit whatever target they’re pointed at. Even you might know that. What you point it at, targets, people trying to kill you, innocent victims depends on your circumstance or your level of insanity.

      Do you think the murderer at the Tree of Life synagogue would have been able to shoot four heavily armed and body armored police officers if he had a four shot Remington Model 7?

      Yes, he would have been able to. 4 officers, 4 shots.

      Do mass murderers choose military-style assault weapons to kill several humans at a time because mass murderers are cowardly losers and the military-style assault weapons finally make them feel like a “man”?

      They do it for the same illogical reasons other clinically insane people go on shooting sprees. Mostly no real logical reason at all. However, if you’d like to waste time eliminating all the factors that might cause an insane person from going berserk, other than actually treating them in a mental hospital where they belong, you’re going to see these. The weapon will be whatever is available, knives, trucks, fertilizer, gasoline, guns, etc.

      I’m sure you’re very upset that someone, somewhere owns something that you don’t. Too bad.

      • Jethro says:

        The common thread seems to be white nationalists, whether mowing innocents down with assault weapons or automobiles. You may be right, banning white nationalists and those Con Men that tolerate them may be all that’s needed.

        That way, Con Boyz who need their toyz to play army can still do so.

        The Pittsburgh murderer wanted to kill Jews he believed to be involved in bringing refugees into the US – refugees he believed were coming to harm white people. This falsehood is exactly what the right-wing has been pimping, to the detriment of America.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS MOW DOWN more people every year than all the deranged White Nationalists you call us.

          YOU PROTECT ILLEGALS while demanding we throw out white nationalists.

          You are a paid shill of George Soros an NPC with no thought process of your own. Only what has been spoon fed to you by your handlers.

          More Blacks mow down more Blacks than all the deranged crazies combined. In fact Chicago alone does that all by itself that does not even include the 100,000 other towns and cities where people are killing each other in epidemic fashion.

          YET You PROTECT ILLEGALS and IGNORE Blacks those that you take for granted as a voting block to give you power.

          YOU WANT blacks killing blacks so you can blame their plight on the GOP who has had only a tiny bit of the blame at their feet while the democrats wallow in poverty, ecstatic that their constituents are poor and can only be helped by a barely adequate welfare check.

          Thats the real problem with this country. Not AR’s who kill 100 people a year while Illegals and Blacks mow them down by the bushel barrel.

    • formwiz says:

      In Mexico, a hammer or a screwdriver is an assault weapon. A sixshooter or automatic pistol can kill as many or more – the Nazi use 3 Glocks.

      You want to take some of these people off the streets?

      Death penalty, open up the mental institutions, quit giving criminals all the rights, all the things the Lefties did in the 60s.

      You created this, not us. You don’t want to fix it (obviously)? We will.

      • Jethro says:

        The neoNazi used an AR-15.

        We have the death penalty.

        Would you have put the white nationalist in a mental institution based on his Gab postings? Why would you put him away?

        So liberals created all the right-wing bombers and shooters? So liberals are spreading lies about immigrants and Jews? Fascinating.

        You’re out of touch with reality.

        • Mangoldielocks says:

          No you leftist NPC’s are out of touch. Everything bad that happens in this country you throw in the rights face. This guy hated trump and muslims and Jews. he was not a white nationalists. HE WAS HISPANIC.

          Blacks are mowing down blacks at incredible numbers each day. YOU DO NOT CARE. You only care about optics. You want blacks killing each other. It keeps them angry and voting for Democrats

          The lefts insane desire for power is spine chilling.

          Reason 20001 not to vote for a Democrat this election cycle.

          • Jethro says:

            Robert Bowers, who murdered Jews is not Hispanic.

            Ignorant cons may believe you, tRump and Google, but normal people don’t.

  2. Jethro says:

    TEACH:

    “…restrict their Constitutional Rights, for the actions of a few?”

    Do you really believe that Americans have a Constitutional right to assault weapons?

    • gitarcarver says:

      Is there anything in the Constitution that forbids it?

      Please cite the relevant passage.

      • Jethro says:

        You can’t be serious. So you think anything not specifically listed in the Constitution is allowable? The Constitution doesn’t forbid RPGs. It doesn’t forbid rape. Prostitution. Heroin. Kidnapping. Murder. Fraud. Crystal meth. Burglary.

        Cite where the Constitution forbids murder.

        • gitarcarver says:

          This is basic Civics from second grade Jeffery.

          The Constitution sets up the government which is designed to protect the enumerated rights of people.

          The power to make laws for federal crimes is found in Articles I and II.

          However, those laws are restrained by the Constitution and the rights of people.

          We get that you are making a silly ridiculous argument, but even for you this is over the top.

          If you don’t understand the rights of people, maybe you should get off of here and take a basic GED course in civics.

          So once again, as there is a right to bear arms, where does the Constitution ban an semi-automatic rifle?

          • Jethro says:

            Typical gitarcarver spin and slide. So once again, where does the Constitution ban murder?

            You believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to any and all firearms. Does it guarantee the right to machine guns? Sawed off shotguns? Exploding bullets? Land mines?

            The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Do you insist that we have a well regulated Militia?

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            Perhaps you should get off of here and talk to your neurologist.

          • gitarcarver says:

            So once again, where does the Constitution ban murder?

            Asked and answered. It seems that you have problems dealing with reading what you don’t want to consider.

            You believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to any and all firearms.

            Typical shifting of the goal posts from you.

          • Jethro says:

            So once again, what makes you think the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to machine guns, assault rifles, RPGs, sawed off shotguns and assault weapons? Don’t the current special taxes on many of these weapons violate the Constitution? Do you favor making machine guns more available?

            If your semantic argument is that assault weapons are identical to all other semi-auto rifles, it fails. They’re not the same.

            You may have missed this in your 2nd grade civics class (like most southerners you stopped school at 3rd grade), but the Supreme Court determines what laws are Constitutional.

          • gitarcarver says:

            If your semantic argument is that assault weapons are identical to all other semi-auto rifles, it fails. They’re not the same.

            They are the same in function which is what matters.

            You may have missed this in your 2nd grade civics class (like most southerners you stopped school at 3rd grade), but the Supreme Court determines what laws are Constitutional.

            There ya go. You just can’t resist reaching down to the insults when your arguments are being shown to be false.

            All the left has is hate.

          • Jethro says:

            So now you’re the victim, LOL. You can insult, but when turned on you, you’re feelings are hurt.

            You visit a hate site. You attach yourself to political party and social movement that cultivates hate for sustenance. Your movement shouts “Jews won’t replace us!”, mails bombs to “the enemies of the people” and guns down innocent minority members.

            And you have the temerity to call others hate-filled.

            Poor baby. Grow a pair.

            If assault weapons and hunting rifles have the same functionality, why don’t mass murderers choose hunting rifles? In fact, you are wrong. They may have the same ‘action’ (semi-auto) but that doesn’t make them identical. Assault weapons are modeled off military assault rifles with all the features that make them valuable for the military – save one – the action.

            We understand that you prefer to argue trivia as a distraction, hence your nickname – The Semanticist!

          • Liljeffyatemypupp says:

            Ah,yes. The angry little black fella once again reverts to sanctimony.
            As usual, he’s been rhetorically “out-gunned” by Gitarcarver again.
            LOL

            https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • gitarcarver says:

            You can insult, but when turned on you, you’re feelings are hurt.

            Where’s the insult that I made, Jeffery? Giving an “if-then” statement to you?

            That’s not an insult and you should know that.

            BTW, I am not “hurt” at all. I am pointing out your hypocrisy. You always claim that you never start the name calling and here you did.

            You visit a hate site.

            (Oh this oughta be good.) Which site is that, Jeffery? Please offer evidence to your claim.

            And you have the temerity to call others hate-filled.

            Truth hurts, huh?

            If assault weapons and hunting rifles have the same functionality, why don’t mass murderers choose hunting rifles?

            Changing the goalposts again?

            They may have the same ‘action’ (semi-auto) but that doesn’t make them identical.

            Functionally, they are the same.

            Assault weapons are modeled off military assault rifles with all the features that make them valuable for the military – save one – the action.

            So they are not “assault rifles” then, are they?

            According to your thinking, this would be an “assault rifle.” After all, it looks the same and the only difference is the action.

          • Jethro says:

            For git, it always depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.

            But one lie at a time.

            Have you ever shot a 30-06 or 7 mm? It’s not easy to shoot 3 rounds, much less 100.

            Functionally, assault weapons are better suited for shooting groups of people than are deer rifles.

            Why, you should ask? Lighter, shorter, air-cooled barrel, large easily detachable magazines, lower recoil, pistol grip makes aiming easy – even allows firing from the hip, reliable when you have to fire hundreds of rounds in a short amount of time! Of course, what’s obvious (or should be) is that MASS SHOOTERS UNANIMOUSLY AGREE – assault weapons are the best for the job!

            Do you agree that it’s easier to shoot hundreds of rounds into a group using an assault weapon, than using a hunting rifle? Please don’t embarrass yourself and your fluffer by denying it.

            You’re beaten. So let’s just put your feeble semantic argument to rest. They’re not the same, except for having a semi-auto action.

            Please load up your next lie.

          • gitarcarver says:

            But one lie at a time.

            Cool! You are going to address your lies! I can’t wait!

            Have you ever shot a 30-06 or 7 mm? It’s not easy to shoot 3 rounds, much less 100.

            And this addresses the difference in functionality how? In a semi-automatice weapon, isn’t the action (the functionality) the same?

            (Oh, and to answer your question, yes I have. Didn’t have the same trouble you seem to have had, but people differ.)

            Functionally, assault weapons are better suited for shooting groups of people than are deer rifles.

            Once again, you are trying to deflect.

            The right to bear arms is not just about shooting deer or hunting. The right to bear arms entails the most basic right of all – the right of self defense.

            Your reliance on the hunting argument is basically irrelevant.

            Do you agree that it’s easier to shoot hundreds of rounds into a group using an assault weapon, than using a hunting rifle?

            In that there are semi-automatic hunting rifles, I would most certainly disagree.

            Is it your belief that all semi-automatic weapons should be banned? Or just those that you think are “assault rifles?”

            Please don’t embarrass yourself and your fluffer by denying it.

            Just can’t get away from the insults can you?

            They’re not the same, except for having a semi-auto action.

            So they are the same.

            We get it. You want to tell people that they cannot protect themselves and that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting.

            We’ve discussed that fallacy before and you’ve walked away muttering insults because the facts are against you.

            But facts don’t matter to you and to many on the left.

            All you have is hate.

            PS – I thought you were going to address your lies? Failed again, eh?

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          Are you truly that stupid????

          • Professor hale says:

            I don’t think he is. He can’t possibly believe everything he says here. I think he is a classic troll in that he derives happiness by getting other people spun up, so he just throws out the most outrageous things he can think of to get that effect. You guys can do as you like, but the best policy would be to ignore him instead of feeding him.

    • formwiz says:

      They did in 1788. You think the Pennsylvania Long Rifle wasn’t the AR-15 of its day?

  3. Professor hale says:

    “…and you’d have to be an idiot to take a semi-automatic weapon to war.” You mean like all those “Idiots” who tool M-1 rifles and M-1 carbines to war in WW2?

    The US military puts selector switches on it’s “assault rifles” because most of the time semi-auto is the right answer.

    • formwiz says:

      At one time, don’t know if it’s still true, the Army changed the full auto option to 3 round burst. The other option is single shot.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    Why not just pass laws in every state and territory making killing people without a good reason illegal? That way everyone is protected no matter what kind of weapon is used. Problem solved!

  5. formwiz says:

    The Constitution doesn’t forbid RPGs. It doesn’t forbid rape. Prostitution. Heroin. Kidnapping. Murder. Fraud. Crystal meth. Burglary.

    No, because those crimes are the purview of the several states, a point you just don’t get You think everything should be under the heel of one all-powerful national government.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Clearly, you never heard of it.

    You believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to any and all firearms. Does it guarantee the right to machine guns? Sawed off shotguns? Exploding bullets? Land mines?

    It gave the militia the right to keep and bear arms. The people were the militia. Most of them kept their Brown Bess or Charleville in their homes. Other weapons (including artillery and mortars), lead, and powder were stored in the village armory.

    The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Do you insist that we have a well regulated Militia?

    Non sequitur, although what you know of the Constitution is what we here have pounded into your head. And the National Guard is the militia, along with all men 17 to 45, so, as part of the Unorganized Militia, if the government permits, I can have a flamethrower and Ma Deuce in my home.

    Robert Bowers, who murdered Jews is not Hispanic.

    Ignorant cons may believe you, tRump and Google, but normal people don’t.

    You sure of that? Mama could have been from Guadalajara, for all you know.

    And you are not normal.

  6. Professor Hale says:

    The M4 carbine was initially fielded with a 3 round burst mode. Those rifles are being retrofitted now to the M4A1 configuration with the full auto option. The reason is that full auto has some particularly useful applications in close quarters and the burst mode wasn’t particularly useful at anything. Other armies have toyed with two and three round burst modes. In theory they were going to be the cat’s pajamas in doing wonderful things, but in real life combat they failed to deliver any noticeable improvements in killing people faster or winning battles easier.

    • gitarcarver says:

      As I remember, the restriction to 3 shot bursts was implemented after Viet Nam where troops were using the “spray and pray” method of firing. Shots were flying over the heads of the enemy and so the military instituted the restriction in an attempt to make sure the shooter would reacquire where they wanted to shoot and not just waste ammunition.

      It is probably fair to say that in open county, three shot bursts may be a good thing. In closed quarters, as you noted, not so much.

      • Professor hale says:

        Quite a bit after Vietnam. Spray and pray is an actual deliberate tactic. The M4 first started getting into the hands of ground troops in the late 90’s and in large numbers between 2003-2005. They accounted for 50% of the force by 2005, the rest were M16A2 and M16A4. While the 3 rd burst saved ammo over the full auto mode, semi-auto did that even better. So the Army was faced with maximizing 2 capabilities, first round hit, or high volume of fire. The middle ground of the 3 rd burst didn’t do either of those. somewhere around 2010, the Army decided to pure-fleet all of its rifles as the M4A1 (full auto) design. This of course does not include sniper weapons or SAWs.

  7. Professor Hale says:

    There is a narrow window of utility for the 3 rd burst that is generally between 10-75 meters. At farther ranges, the dispersion is such that only 1 round hits the target. At close ranges, and firing from the hip, you have a better change of hitting the target with at least one round, in the first burst, then bring the weapon back onto target for a subsequent burst. But in practice, you got the same effect firing short bursts from fully auto mode. Training privates how to use their finger isn’t that hard.

    The Russians had a 2 rd hyperburst that was designed to thwart US body armor by putting 2 rounds into nearly the same hole. It worked really well in testing but Russia gave up on it since the rifles were too complicated for field use and prone to jamming.

    For what it’s worth, I do this for a living.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5131 access attempts in the last 7 days.