Need Help!!!

[William Yanda]

I'm borrowing this, but; "If guns kill people, then the spoon made Rosie O'Donnell fat." The premise of those who would ban "assault weapons" is flawed. The operator rather than the implement is responsible. Yellow press journalism would eliminate "assault weapons", SUV's, global warming, trans fat, etc. etc. etc.
Thanks for daring to pick up this hot topic. I suspect the environment in which it is delivered will be liberal and hostile. Be pleasant, don't laugh at them too much and good luck.
Bill

[canyon-ghost]

The entire issue is a spinoff of Colt's use of the name Assault Rifle for ARs, I think they meant that if you are under assault- you need an AR. I live where my neighbors have as many firearms as I do. Am I afraid they'll set up a machine gun? No, I'm just glad they know when to kill an oppossum or skunk to protect the pets in the neighborhood.

Oh, and it's handy for rattlesnakes sometimes.

[Wayne Smith]

Chris, when is this due? If you have a chance and time come on over this weekend and we can work on an outline for you to use in constructing a paper. You don't "write" a paper, you construct a paper with a series of arguments and defenses of those arguments.

Those who say you need to define "assault weapon" formally and not accept the media definitions are right. Think of this as one of the foundational arguments for your paper. Ownership of guns is a right, defined in the Constitution, confirmed by the courts. Infringement on those rights must be carefully thought out, defined, and argued on the basis of fact and clear definition, not on emotion and poor definition. If you make these arguments you are going well beyond the specific purpose of the paper but are reaching the true issue behind the issue the assignment specifies.

[Finster101]

I can "assault" you with any weapon. I can assault you with a shovel and it becomes a weapon, a stick, a tennis racket the argument is endless.

[waksupi]

Assault weapons have been wrongly categorized so long by the media, they have made them unidentifiable to the general public. Crime stats show that they are used in a miniscule amount of crimes.
Going back even further than our Revolution, look at Agincourt. The French thought they had a superior assault weapon with their cross bows. The English taught them that the long bow still ruled, big time. An assault weapon is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in it's actual effectiveness.

[runfiverun]

hmm, i call my AR's defensive weapons. [okay,okay, i really call them brass flingers]
but if i was gonna assault something, i'd do it with mortars,tanks and cannon fire, not a varmint rifle.
[i can own mortars,tanks and cannons however]

[SharpsShooter]

Look to how Sweden handles the q

[OBIII]

Chris,
When you construct your paper, use the term "Citizen" in lieu of civilian. Make sure it is capitalized. Good luck and do your math homework.
OB

[Ickisrulz]

When the anti-gunners claim that AR-15s, AK-47, etc. are good for nothing except killing people...I say that's the point in having them.

There's enough evidence to show that the founders wrote the 2A to ensure "the people" could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. It would reason that "the people" should be armed with weapons similar to those issued to the military. We cannot defend ourselves against machine guns with Ruger No. 1s. Therefore, I think access to full auto weapons over the counter is implied by the 2A.

[Arisaka99]

Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the input. This'll be the best paper ever! Wayne, we just had to do our thesis as of yet. I'll let you know when we start our main paper.

[Stick_man]

If they want our "assault weapons", I would strongly recommend, as an act of good faith, that they give up all of THEIR "assault weapons first: stones (I have a bunch in my back yard they can take), sticks, clubs, clothing, boots, bottles, papers, glass, etc., and the list could go on for quite a while. Of course, doing that would also infringe upon other amendments to the constitution as well. I have witnessed some pretty sever "verbal assaults", so people would have to give up their voices. Physical "assaults" also would require them to have all of their appendages amputated.

So, what is the difference between "Assault" and "Battery"? I had always heard "assault" was a verbal attack where "battery" was a physical attack. If this is true, the only true "assault weapon" would be the human tongue.

[Mossy Nugget]

An interesting note you might include: the earliest use I have heard of the term "assault rifle" was the Nazi Germany prototype StG44 which stood for Sturm Gewher, which means to storm or assault ( the enemy position) rifle. These and their many variants became the basis for modern designs for fully automatic weapons of this type. As well noted above, the semi-automatic versions of these rifles are no more deadly than traditional sporting arms, differing only in appearance.

[shooter93]

At the risk of getting into long winded deabtes with the opposisiton and possibly being branded as a right wing lunatic...( i had that title in school and i'm sure many here hold it now)...squelch the idea of an assualt weapon right off in your paper. It's a non existent device perpatrated my the media and the other side. As mentioned you can be assualted with any gun or any device for that matter. As to the what or why we should own them go right to the true INTENT of the 2nd. We need to have readily available to us the weapons to defend ourselves from an abusive or tyrantical government and use them to aquire the weapons from that governments troops to provide us with the means to stop their abusive....period.
I'm not negating the rights to personal defense which we have ofcourse but the root of the 2nd is to be able to stop THEM. Not something that one would relish but appears atleast to me that it's becoming increasingly necessary. Following those lines just the very fact that the public owns and knows how to use such weapons could thwart that scenario but again I'm begining to doubt that.

[gray wolf]

Do you folks ever get tired of these loaded questions ??
I would tell them to stick there survey ( question) In a place the sun don't shine.
I would also say it's not up for debate.
and there opinion or anyone one Else's don't amount to ****.
If they wanted to continue They would have to define assault weapon,
Then after proving them wrong, I would leave them with this and say
" case closed, next question "

The bill of rights was drafted such that American citizens could protect them selves from the government. Research the second amendment along with the Jeffersonian letters. If the U.S. Military can own it why shouldn't the Citizen be allowed to own it? When the whole thought process behind the second amendment was to enable the citizenry to protect its self from the U.S. Government.
Or just neatly print the second amendment on a nice piece of paper and hand it in.

[John 242]

An interesting note you might include: the earliest use I have heard of the term "assault rifle" was the Nazi Germany prototype StG44 which stood for Sturm Gewher, which means to storm or assault ( the enemy position) rifle. These and their many variants became the basis for modern designs for fully automatic weapons of this type. As well noted above, the semi-automatic versions of these rifles are no more deadly than traditional sporting arms, differing only in appearance.

Yes, that's what I understood a "assault rifle" to be, as patterned on the original; The Sturmgewher.

What are the characteristics of a Sturmgewehr or what is considered an assault rifle?
- it fires a intermediate cartridge (Ie, 5.56x45, 7.62x39 or 7.92x33)
- it's selective fire
- it's shorter in length than a full-size rifle
- has a detachable box magazine

The assault rifle concept fits well into mechanized warfare. The weapon is shorter and handier than a large bolt-action or semi-auto rifle, can provide a higher volume of fire and is significantly more powerful than a submachine-gun.

The "assault" part of the designation refers to the tactic of achieving a overwhelming volume of fire (suppressive fire) on an enemy position while attacking (assaulting) it.
The AK-47 design fits this designation perfectly.
The original M16 and M16A1 also fit into this classification, but I would argue that the M16A2, M4 and M16A4 DO NOT fit into this role, due to their 3-shot-burst mechanisms.

I don't agree that there is no such thing as a "assault rifle". The designation seems pretty straight forward to me.
I would say that term "assault rifle" DOES NOT apply to anything available to the average gun buyer.

[geargnasher]

The fact that that's even a subject for a paper is screwball.

First, the second amendment guarantees lawful citizens the right, IT ISN'T UP FOR DEBATE, no matter what the socialist retards want to think. If you debate it, you accept THEIR terms, which is first the assumption that the subject is up for review.

Second, what's an "assault weapon"? The US military uses Remington bolt-action repeaters, and I have numerous friends that hunt deer with Garands, M14s, and a thousand varieties of the AR. What difference does it really make?

You want to write a paper? Do some research and show Jefferson's intent, also the Supreme Court's findings on the original intent of the 2A to allow PRIVATE citizens to own and use guns. Also note that Jefferson and a couple of others were OPPOSED to defining the specific rights granted by the first ten amendments because they knew that when you start defining, you also start excluding by inference. If it isn't specifically granted, it's assumed to be witheld.

Gear

[raingauge]

If I remember my english correctly, the word assault is a verb, as in action, something a firearm can't do. For me, calling a firearm an "assault" rifle rates right up there with assault cars, assault motorcycles, assault fishing poles, everybody should own them.

[Blacksmith]

Chris
First be prepared to receive some flack from school because your topic won't be popular and may not get the grade it deserves. I salute your effort.

This site has an excellent discussion on the second ammendment, what it means and why it was written.
http://barefootsworld.net/constit1.html

+1 on writing a paper is a construction process. Be certain that you carefully define all your terms because your readers will not know what you mean by "Machine Gun", "Semi Automatic", even "Assault" has different meanings to different people. Your reader does not have your background and knowledge of guns so you must educate them.

You have taken on a task that will probably mean more work for you than your classmates because to make an unpopular (to your readers) subject understandable and to convince them to change preconcieved ideas will take more work on your part.

Your paper needs a Beginning, the Body, and an End. In the beginning state your position and what you will show. The body section will contain your facts and arguement. The end is the summary of how you proved your position. Be certain you properly quote sources and footnote. English teachers love that. Spell and grammer check and recheck, not like we do on the forum.

If you make an outline it will help you organize your facts and arguments.

Good luck.

[John 242]

If I remember my english correctly, the word assault is a verb, as in action, something a firearm can't do. For me, calling a firearm an "assault" rifle rates right up there with assault cars, assault motorcycles, assault fishing poles, everybody should own them.

...or assault courses, assault vests, air assault, assault ladders...

Not trying to be an jerk, (I have that bad habit) but the term is meant to describe the roll in which the weapon or equipment is to be used.
There used to be assault tanks, assault gus, landing craft assault (assault type landing craft or LCAs)...
I could go on and on.

[400short]

Chris, you started a great thread! Just playing the devils advocate here, you realize that this audience has a heavy pro-gun bias. I don't know where you are trying to go with your report, but it seems to me that you need to represent the opposition also, somehow, hopefully in a bad light. I applaud your enthusiasm.

Dirtfarmer, No the issue was NOT decided at Concord. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance!