General Discussion

ManiacJoe

(10,138 posts)

23. Connecticut had an "assault weapon" ban at the time. Still does.

Mon Dec 14, 2015, 10:47 PM

Dec 2015

Lanza's rifle did not meet the definition of "assault weapon", by fed definition nor by CT definition.

You are confusing "assault weapon" with "assault rifle". They are two different things. Assault rifles are machine guns used by the military. Assault rifles have never been included in any definition of "assault weapon". Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, ten years before they were invented.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

125 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Today's Daily News cover for 3rd anniversary of Newtown CT shooting [View all] ErikJ Dec 2015 OP

Their trade group is headquartered in Newtown hack89 Dec 2015 #1

The Daily News is on a roll! smirkymonkey Dec 2015 #2

You bet they are! AwakeAtLast Dec 2015 #4

Hope they keep up the pressure 2naSalit Dec 2015 #3

I'm really glad to see this. liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #5

Or they blame Obama ErikJ Dec 2015 #6

Today is a difficult day lapislzi Dec 2015 #7

Your post made me cry . . . I am so sorry for your community. fleur-de-lisa Dec 2015 #8

I remember your post here on DU on that day snacker Dec 2015 #11

Damn hibbing Dec 2015 #14

I also remember your posting here on that horrible day, liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #20

My heart breaks for you and your colleague. AngryOldDem Dec 2015 #82

I can't even imagine...prayers to him. I think for me to survive something like that adigal Dec 2015 #86

wow, that's impressive , esp for the daily news. nt ellenrr Dec 2015 #9

You have no idea ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #13

And that is truly emblematic of just how liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #24

Good Article from RS...back in Oct. deathrind Dec 2015 #10

Um ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #12

Yes, and...? Hissyspit Dec 2015 #15

The entire document was... deathrind Dec 2015 #16

It's really very simple ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #18

Hmmm. if only there was a way to change only part of something kcr Dec 2015 #26

You missed the point entirely. Straw Man Dec 2015 #28

Is the entire document about guns? kcr Dec 2015 #29

You missed it again. The point, I mean. Straw Man Dec 2015 #32

Point not missed. What do you think the word Amendment means? kcr Dec 2015 #34

It has nothing to do with amendments. Straw Man Dec 2015 #38

Oh? I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about an Amendment kcr Dec 2015 #39

It has to do with the justifications given ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #41

But it doesn't apply equally to the rest of it, because the whole thing isn't about guns. kcr Dec 2015 #42

So use a criticism about guns. Straw Man Dec 2015 #43

Statements of fact are not ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #44

They most certainly are, or can be. Straw Man Dec 2015 #45

Yes, but the word attack is key. Without attack, there is no ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #46

Without attack? Straw Man Dec 2015 #48

But they were slaveholders kcr Dec 2015 #50

Of course they were. Do you think that's a good thing to be? I don't. Straw Man Dec 2015 #52

So, because I think their slaveholder status was relevant to guns, that means I think it's good? kcr Dec 2015 #54

You're trying to argue that "slaveholder" is not an ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #56

So they wren't slaveholders? kcr Dec 2015 #58

Please don't try to pretend I ever said that. Straw Man Dec 2015 #61

When you claimed the person stating that fact was making an ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #62

Please look up ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #64

The definition does not say that all facts are ad hominem kcr Dec 2015 #67

What? Straw Man Dec 2015 #69

How is stating someone is a slaveholder when they actually are a personal attack? kcr Dec 2015 #70

So you read it as neutral? Straw Man Dec 2015 #73

So, you wanted it explained specifically how slavery was bad? kcr Dec 2015 #75

No, just specifically how it related to the Second Amendment. Straw Man Dec 2015 #77

I couldn't help it. kcr Dec 2015 #78

I see you still don't understand ad hominem. Straw Man Dec 2015 #79

I'm sure a lot of people now believe that calling slaveholders slaveholders kcr Dec 2015 #80

It depends on why you do it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #81

Once more, with feeling. Straw Man Dec 2015 #47

What? Even the title of the article has the word gun in it. kcr Dec 2015 #49

I'm not talking about the whole article. Straw Man Dec 2015 #51

Oh, I know exactly what you've been saying. kcr Dec 2015 #53

No, you don't. You really don't. Straw Man Dec 2015 #55

Well, they wren't alive for the whole thing, so it wouldn't make sense kcr Dec 2015 #57

Main document and the Bill of Rights. Straw Man Dec 2015 #59

Oh, so the 13th isn't Constitutional enough. Disregard the amendment that corrected THAT mistake. kcr Dec 2015 #60

I'm not the one moving the goalposts. Straw Man Dec 2015 #63

So, you didn't actually mean the entire consitution kcr Dec 2015 #65

No, just the part that was Straw Man Dec 2015 #66

You might want to look up the word entire n/t kcr Dec 2015 #68

Is this a "gotcha" moment for you? Straw Man Dec 2015 #71

Yep. It sure is. kcr Dec 2015 #72

Enjoy it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #76

This is the point where I click the "Back" button and go look for something else to read. NBachers Dec 2015 #105

Feel free to ignore anything you don't want to read. Straw Man Dec 2015 #108

Waters = muddied. Good job with your pointless nitpicking. Yay for you. n/t leeroysphitz Dec 2015 #97

The waters were already muddy. Straw Man Dec 2015 #106

Sorry, don't say this often - But that's an idiotic statement packman Dec 2015 #107

Only because you don't understand it. Straw Man Dec 2015 #109

I did not write the article... deathrind Dec 2015 #112

I was referring to a specific point ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #116

I understand your point... deathrind Dec 2015 #121

Thanks. Straw Man Dec 2015 #123

As a historian and former legal worker liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #21

Pardon me ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #25

Ah, yes, but the point is The Constitution has been amended to give full rights mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #87

Yes, to give full rights. Straw Man Dec 2015 #89

No. Any person wanting to serve with a State Militia (National Guard these days) mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #98

Sorry -- your interpretation of the Second Amendment is wrong. Straw Man Dec 2015 #100

The Constitution can be amended. I'll stand my ground on that one. It only takes mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #101

Of course it can. Straw Man Dec 2015 #102

Indeed. We have no need for more guns than people in this country. It's definitely a health hazard. mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #113

Nice graph. Straw Man Dec 2015 #117

Common mistake. Estimates of the number of people who own guns is quite different... mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #118

Nobody said ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #119

You are making me LOL. Seriously. mnhtnbb Dec 2015 #120

You're easily amused. Straw Man Dec 2015 #122

Gun Humper: snort Dec 2015 #90

Is this what they mean ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #93

Nope. This is what they mean by going to a Waltz. snort Dec 2015 #94

Confirmed: you have no interest in discussing anything. Straw Man Dec 2015 #95

And you are 'hear' to say: snort Dec 2015 #96

Thanks for the correction. Straw Man Dec 2015 #99

One name: snort Dec 2015 #103

... and assorted insults. Straw Man Dec 2015 #104

No. Never did. That was your idea. snort Dec 2015 #114

So you're not here for discussion. Straw Man Dec 2015 #115

Three years after awoke_in_2003 Dec 2015 #17

If Lanza's mom had keep the gun safe door secured, ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #19

If the assault rifle ban had not been liberalhistorian Dec 2015 #22

Connecticut had an "assault weapon" ban at the time. Still does. ManiacJoe Dec 2015 #23

If only there were a way to change laws... kcr Dec 2015 #27

It really don't matter what law they pass... virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #30

Does that apply to all laws? Because people ignore other laws too, all the time. kcr Dec 2015 #31

People tend to only follow laws they agree with and make sense to them. virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #33

Okay, so I'll put you down for "no laws" Gotcha n/t kcr Dec 2015 #35

Where did I say that?! virginia mountainman Dec 2015 #36

I'm sorry for misunderstanding kcr Dec 2015 #37

And yet we hear the phrase "law abiding gun owner" thucythucy Dec 2015 #84

"Law abiding" as in "not criminals." Straw Man Dec 2015 #85

So you're comparing reasonable gun regulation thucythucy Dec 2015 #124

Ah, the "R" words ... Straw Man Dec 2015 #125

Amen Lorien Dec 2015 #40

The 2A allows for the strict regulation of guns hack89 Dec 2015 #92

+1 AngryOldDem Dec 2015 #83

Lanza's gun would have been legal during the AWB hack89 Dec 2015 #91

Photos in remememberance... riversedge Dec 2015 #74

... sarge43 Dec 2015 #110

Bravo for the truth! valerief Dec 2015 #88

kudos to the daily news for the truth niyad Dec 2015 #111