shakari Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 What do you mean by more than we ever know. ? FWIW, There are several conspiracy theories about the shooting including reports of other shooters & the same can be said of the Dunblane one that resulted in the UK handgun ban but the same can be said of many other notable events in history such as David Kelly, Diana & Kennedy. I guess we'll never know what is & isn't true about some things in life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 FWIW, There are several conspiracy theories about the shooting including reports of other shooters & the same can be said of the Dunblane one that resulted in the UK handgun ban but the same can be said of many other notable events in history such as David Kelly, Diana & Kennedy. I guess we'll never know what is & isn't true about some things in life. The problem is that these theories are total excrement. The Dunblane one was pure fantasy and the woman who was touting it is a certifiable loon. She closed her website and discussion board down when it was suggested to her that it was just a load of invented rubbish in order to make shooters look bad and that she'd been hooked into it as a useful idiot. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 1, 2013 Report Share Posted April 1, 2013 The Bushmaster / Colt AR15 are already banned in the state of Conneticut / Sandy Hook So how did she (his mother) get hold of one and she was seen teaching him on a range? Ther's more to it than we will ever know about. I'm not sure that that is correct. CT has a law modelled after the Federal assault weapons ban which dos not exist any more. Depending on that features the rifle had would determine whether it was legal or not. Story: http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-18/news/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217_1_assault-weapon-adam-lanza-lethal-weapon J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakari Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 The problem is that these theories are total excrement. The Dunblane one was pure fantasy and the woman who was touting it is a certifiable loon. She closed her website and discussion board down when it was suggested to her that it was just a load of invented rubbish in order to make shooters look bad and that she'd been hooked into it as a useful idiot. J. I'd agree that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are complete and utter BS but my point is some may have at least a grain of truth in them and some possibly more (esp the David Kelly ones IMO) and that in some cases, we'll never know what is and isn't completely true. All we can do as individuals is to decide what we believe to be the most likely. Sorry for getting a bit off topic there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Connecticut State Law (no person shall possess any "Assault weapon" unless that person possessed that weapon before October 1 1993) So they want to ban something that's already banned and can't be traded either they have to be surrendered to the state. It's also a Class D felony. She must have had a certificate from the police before Oct 1994. NRA-ILA State by State Laws. Say much the same. I'm not sure that that is correct. CT has a law modelled after the Federal assault weapons ban which dos not exist any more. Depending on that features the rifle had would determine whether it was legal or not. Story: http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-18/news/hc-newtown-assault-weapons-20121217_1_assault-weapon-adam-lanza-lethal-weapon J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) I think a lot of this may hang on the exact term 'assualt weapon'.As far as I know,the civilian variation of the AR-15 is a semi-automatic hunting rifle,and not capable of full automatic fire,which I'm assuming 'assault weapons' are. I was led to believe,however,from an aquaintance who has been,that in Louisianna fully automatic weapons are available to civilian shooters,but I wont argue the point if proved wrong. I regard myself 100% pro-gun. Edited April 2, 2013 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) No gun laws are 100% are they, but when was the last time the local nut job went ans slaughtered loads of children with automatic assault rifles etc in this country ?. If pro gun means they want the right to be able to purchase any gun from a pistol to a 50 cal then I dont agree with it. 1/ There has only ever been 1 mass shooting in the US with an automatic assault rifle 2/ You can purchase a pistol and .50cal in THIS country (and most things inbetween)!! If you actually bother to look into the history of gun control in this country, it has nothing to do with saving lives, and everything to do with the people in charge wanting to stay the people in charge, this is not a conspiracy theory/made up story, its documented fact. Reading Clayton Cramer's article called " Fear and Loathing in Whitehall: Bolshevism and the Firearms Act 1920 is a good start. Edited April 2, 2013 by Breastman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Scholl Posted April 2, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 (edited) Connecticut State Law (no person shall possess any "Assault weapon" unless that person possessed that weapon before October 1 1993) So they want to ban something that's already banned and can't be traded either they have to be surrendered to the state. It's also a Class D felony. She must have had a certificate from the police before Oct 1994. NRA-ILA State by State Laws. Say much the same. I don't think you quite get it. The law only bans the AR-15 name and any semi-automatic rifle with two or more "evil" features. All the manufacturers did was change the name (hence XM-15) and eliminate the banned features. That way, it's not an assault weapon under the law, and you can still have an AR-15. You just can't have one with a flash hider or collapsible stock. This is a Connecticut legal Bushmaster XM-15. The only difference between this and an illegal AR-15 is that it has no flash hider. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0e/Bushmaster.jpg Edited April 2, 2013 by Dr_Scholl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 I know what the "Evil" features are I've just read them. Cant say about the weapon used though. Haven't seen it. They were classing it as an assault rifle. Nelson, Georgia. Council votes for mandatory gun ownership. Here in Great Britain we had a similar thinking some years back. That if you were about 40 minutes away from the Police to respond then that was deemed 'Good Reason' to own a firearm for defense. Also some occupations as well ie. Jewelers. Good luck to them Keep your powder dry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Connecticut State Law (no person shall possess any "Assault weapon" unless that person possessed that weapon before October 1 1993) So they want to ban something that's already banned and can't be traded either they have to be surrendered to the state. It's also a Class D felony. She must have had a certificate from the police before Oct 1994. NRA-ILA State by State Laws. Say much the same. The thing is though that it probably isn't an 'Assault Weapon' as defined by the law so she was probablyallowed to buy it. When an 'assault weapon' is an assault weapon purely due to the fact that it has a bayonet lug (or other pointless cosmetic feature) then something can look almost identical to one without actually being one. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 I think a lot of this may hang on the exact term 'assualt weapon'.As far as I know,the civilian variation of the AR-15 is a semi-automatic hunting rifle,and not capable of full automatic fire,which I'm assuming 'assault weapons' are. I was led to believe,however,from an aquaintance who has been,that in Louisianna fully automatic weapons are available to civilian shooters,but I wont argue the point if proved wrong. I regard myself 100% pro-gun. The definition in the Assault Weapons ban which ended in 2004 didn't involve a full-auto capability. It was a high-cap gun with features such as a pistol-grip, flash-hider or bayonet attaching point. Hence, you just make a gun without one of those features and it isn't a banned Assault Weapon.]] All full-auto guns in the USA must be regietsred with the federal government and their transfer must be recorded. Moreover, it has not been possible for private individuals to register new ones since May 1986. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 Nelson, Georgia. Council votes for mandatory gun ownership. As for having to have a firearm just as people have the right to have firearms in America they also have the right not to have them if they want. Its a stupid idea requiring people to have firearms. Here in Great Britain we had a similar thinking some years back. That if you were about 40 minutes away from the Police to respond then that was deemed 'Good Reason' to own a firearm for defense. Also some occupations as well ie. Jewelers. When was that its news to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breastman Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 When was that its news to me. Up until 1937 'self-defence' was a 'good reason' to grant a FAC. The Home Secretary then took it upon himself to decide that wasn't a good reason anymore and instructed Chief Constables that FAC's should not be granted for this reason - no legislation was ever passed because they knew it would be seen as an open attack on the right of the individual to protect themselves As far as i'm aware the first legislation which prevented you from carrying a gun for self-defence was the ironically named Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which is also what stops you from being able to carry a locking penknife with you to this day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 As far as i'm aware the first legislation which prevented you from carrying a gun for self-defence was the ironically named Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which is also what stops you from being able to carry a locking penknife with you to this day OK i thought it was recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 2, 2013 Report Share Posted April 2, 2013 I know what the "Evil" features are I've just read them. Cant say about the weapon used though. Haven't seen it. They were classing it as an assault rifle. That's just the press though. They call anything they like based on whether it makes good headlines. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted April 3, 2013 Report Share Posted April 3, 2013 Up until 1937 'self-defence' was a 'good reason' to grant a FAC. The Home Secretary then took it upon himself to decide that wasn't a good reason anymore and instructed Chief Constables that FAC's should not be granted for this reason - no legislation was ever passed because they knew it would be seen as an open attack on the right of the individual to protect themselves As far as i'm aware the first legislation which prevented you from carrying a gun for self-defence was the ironically named Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which is also what stops you from being able to carry a locking penknife with you to this day All very good and accurate points. I beleive it was ironically this Prevention of Crime Act 1953 has done more to hurt genuine self-defence in the Uk than any of the subsequent Gun Control Act 1968 and the 1988 and 1997 bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smoking gun Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 In the USA if more laws are made harder to obtain a gun and people would have to give a good answer to why they should have a gun. Would they be made to fill in a form and would there be a box to tick for killing zombies. As one fear in the USA are zombies, look at youtube even gun dealers are telling what's the best gun to use on a zombies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.