An Assault Rifle Ban Would Still Not Cover the Rifle Lanza Used

You know what everyone, what we need is an assault rifle ban. An assault rifle is some sort of mysterious weapon forged in the fires of hell solely for the purpose of murdering people. No one knows exactly what it is, but if we just bring back the Assault Weapons ban, it will have absolutely no impact as, not only did Connecticut have an Assault Weapons ban, but the ban does not cover the rifle Lanza used.

The rifle he used, a .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine, was legal under Connecticut’s “assault weapon” ban, which is similar to the federal law that expired in 2004. Both laws, in addition to listing specifically prohibited models, cover semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have at least two out of five features: 1) a folding or telescoping stock, 2) a pistol grip, 3) a bayonet mount, 4) a grenade launcher, and 5) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor. The configuration of the rifle used by Lanza, which his mother legally purchased and possessed in Connecticut, evidently was not covered by that definition.

Most of those features have very little to do with the assumptions that most 2nd Amendment opponents have about assault rifles.

  • Michael Travis

    Actually all "M-4" clones would be banned (As they are here in MA.) because of it's flash suppressor, forward grip, and detachable magazines., Nonetheless…. the actual functioning of the weapon is identical to that of most hunting/sporting rifles.

    "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."

    • Viet Vet

      "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."

      I have observed the left taking that 2nd Amendment out of context in several ways. It's out of date. That was then this is now. Guns are supposed to be 'well regulated' by the fed government. The Militia is the today's national guard. It's not an individual right, etc., ad nauseam. Some of that is very juvenile. Some of it is purposely misconstrued. And some of it is legitimately misunderstood.

      • Roderick Weise

        I like how people say you have to be in a militia cause you can look at the federalist papers and non of our founding fathers say that. But lets say you have to be in a militia that's fricken easy to do. Here in my state of Minnesota we have a county militia and all you have to do is sign up and attend a meeting once a month. Wam Bam now you can own all the ar's you want. People that use the militia as a right to bear arms are very misinformed.

        • Viet Vet

          Of course it's easy, at least the way the Founders saw it. Because they saw it as every able-bodied citizen being a part of the militia, automatically. In other words they basically saw the whole of the citizenry as a militia, that stood as a guard against the possilbe tryanny of the central (federal governmnent). That was their primary worry. The Militia Act of 1792 established the standardized militia. All Able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45 were required to be inlisted in the Militia. And this Militia could be called up by the federal government, so it is the predesessor of the National Guard.

          Federalist 29 (Alexander Hamilton and Federalist 46 (James Madison) address the state militias in the Federalist Papers.

    • Viet Vet

      Just a cursory examination of the Bill of Rights and the two Founders most responsible for it, George Mason and Patrick Henry of Virginia, will unambiguously prove that the Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is part of, is about individual rights. And the Supreme court recently confirmed that. The Militia as defined at the time of our Founding meant the 'whole of the people'. They purposely made it separate from the federal government, because that was the major reason for the Amendment, e.g., to offset a standing army and an arbitrary central government. The national guard fails in this, because it can be federalized by the President. When you read the writings of the Founders and the Colonists, you find that they used the language slightly different than it is used today. They used regulated in lieu of trained. So here altogether is how the 2nd Amendment reads:

      A well-regulated (trained) militia (the whole of the citizenry), being necessary to the security of a free state (nation), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    • Viet Vet

      In 1982 the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution did an exhaustive investigation on the meaning and roots of the Second Amendment. At the conclusion they published a 175 page report. I can no longer find the whole report on the internet, but I did years ago and printed it out. However, here are a couple of links to the report, with quite a bit of info.
      http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/rkba.htm
      http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman/senate.htm

    • gbreault85

      actually, you are incorrect.

      there are Mass legal ARs. CT has the same AW ban as Mass

  • Blue Knight

    In Switzerland, "militiamen" have assault rifles and other weapons at home, but I haven't heard of a massacre there.
    Please remember Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer. They murdered lots of people and didn't fire a shot. What we need is not "gun control", but "sin control". This nation rejects God, therefore is under judgment.
    " Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done."
    Violent video games, violent movies must be banned.

    • debby

      the rats are packed too tight here

      • Richard Of OZ

        Debby, you reflect back the point being made.

        • Viet Vet

          You understood her?

          • Monoxide

            Yup.

    • Kyle

      God had nothing to do with this one way or another.

  • Nina

    Gun owners need to work out regulations to reduce the likelihood of these massacres, otherwise it might lead to more extensive legislation being introduced that outlaws many weapons altogether.

    • κατεργάζομαι

      Replying to Nina (quote) "Gun owners need to work out regulations to reduce the likelihood of these massacres, otherwise it might lead to more extensive legislation being introduced that outlaws many weapons altogether. "

      There is this thing called the 2nd Ammendment. There are violent crimes even among the prison population. Prisons are rife with gang activity and crime even when these losers are locked up behind bars serving time for other convictions.

      Bad people do bad things.

    • Mary Sue

      No, we need to ban crazy people and regulate the hell out of them.

      • tagalog

        Amen and ditto.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Hasan, shot 45 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world.

    Maj. Hasan was armed with the FN Five-seven pistol, & A Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver (an older model) was later found on Hasan's person, but it was not used to shoot any of the victims.

    For two months Obama cautioned us to, "not rush to judgement" This is the same Obama who within 48 hours of the Conn. shooting, he took over the airways and began setting the framework for more infringements on out Constitutional Rights.

    •Hasan's business cards displayed an acronym widely used on jihadist websites that translates as "Soldier of Allah." Yet to this day our Islamic-centric administration insists "No terrorist connection"!

    Our precious soldiers were slaughtered and deserve justice. More than THREE YEARS later, Hasan has yet to come to trial!

    ~ Learning the Wrong Lessons From the Fort Hood Massacre – 2/12 – Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/learning_t

    The President, media & politicians' feigned "outrage" is – selective.

    • Viet Vet

      I guess there was a Gun Show today in Philadelphia. Either today or over the weekend. And I guess the left was all up ..ah..in arms over it, in view of the tragedy in Connecticut. Of course the Gun Show attendants, like us, or any normal human being, were very much chagrined about that awful incident, but were in no way subconscious about it, because they know that they, gunowners, and guns, are not reponsible in any way for the tragedy. Anyone with common sense would inherently know that.

      • Viet Vet

        Well, this post sure wasn't supposed to go here.

        • Monoxide

          Where did you want it to be?

  • Mostasteless

    Don't outlaw certain guns without outlawing tobacco and alcohol too. Why give free passes to the other killers in our society?

    • carrie

      Yeah cause pot being illegal stops the thousands of tons of it imported and sold here every year .
      And the coke,heroin,meth,ecstasy ,LSD,crack……

      • tagalog

        Let's declare the U.S. a Pot Free Zone!

    • tomwatkins

      Yeah and lets outlaw certain types of music that causes crazy dancing and make sex before marriage a crime. Hell lets outlaw any kind of fornication that isn't strictly for reproductive purposes and tell families how many children they're allowed to have too.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    One of the safest places on the planet is at a Gun Show! This is another dialectical food fight.

    • Viet Vet

      I guess there was a Gun Show today in Philadelphia. Either today or over the weekend. And I guess the left was all up ..ah..in arms over it, in view of the tragedy in Connecticut. Of course the Gun Show attendants, like us, or any normal human being, were very much chagrined about that awful incident, but were in no way subconscious about it, because they know that they, gunowners, and guns, are not reponsible in any way for the tragedy. Anyone with common sense would inherently know that.

  • Edward Cline

    Anti-gun and gun control advocates don't really distinguish between any of these weapons. If it goes "bang!" and shoots a bullet, then to them it's an evil thing and must be banned. The rate of fire is irrelevant, whether it's an automatic or a semi-automatic is irrelevant.. Whether or not it has a detachable magazine is irrelevant. It goes "bang!" and makes noise and shoots bullets. In the meantime, Eric Holder needn't answer for all the bang-bang guns he got sold to drug dealers, doesn't need to answer for the hundreds of Mexicans who were killed by them, and Obama needn't answer for all the bang-bang guns he's getting to the Syrian "rebels," nor for the jet fighters he's sending to Egypt.

    • Viet Vet

      Yes, the only reason the many gun laws already on the books have not banned guns entirely is beause the republicans have been able to prevent it. The left starts out the 'negotiations' from a no guns allowed standpoint. Many years ago, Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was on one of the night talk shows and the subject of gun control came up. She said: "if it was up to me I would say, mr and mrs America, turn them all in."

  • Thomas Wells

    The critical,and the only factor here is the assaulter. When psychotic savages run wild, it is foolish in the extreme to remove means of defense from honest citizens. Leaving schools less protected than junk yards is criminal negligence. To ignore these facts is an act of cowardly abandonment of reason by those who would push Americans into the hands of the murderers.

    • Viet Vet

      Yes, in view of the fact that Professor John Lott's criminology study several years ago, that took in every county in the nation over a 12 year period, found that law-abiding citizens use their legal guns 2 million times each year to kill or drive off a criminal attack. If those people weren't able to be armed our crime rate and death toll would be out of site. His conclusion was that where guns were the most prevalent, crime was the lowest. He published his study's findings in a book: More Guns, Less Crime. His study also found that kids who grow up with guns in the house were less likely to become involved in drugs. Probably because those families more closely follow the nuclear design, are more conservative and probably hunt and shoot together as a family.

      • we know

        Que?

  • CatK

    Plenty of American families do hunt together-girls too. For many this puts food on the table. There is nothing negative about this. The kids, at the proper age, learn discipline, safety and a skill for surviving. And it's family time. Liberals in cities and suburbs may be far from understanding such families. Acknowledging that there are Healthy, loving, self sufficient families leave them no room for feeling superior and controlling. Viewing guns in an hysterical manner is a just a cover-up for Desiring more control over others. Tyranny loves a disarmed people. Defenseless and hungry and dependent. Some of those liberal arm chair 'controllers' will find that they are victims under tyrannical rule. I won't feel sorry for them.

  • tagalog

    Under the circumstances of every single massacre -or, for that matter, any murder- that has involved a rifle that posseses any of the defining characteristics of the so-called "assault weapon," how does any one, or combination, of those characteristics make the rifle more dangerous than the typical semi-automatic hunting rifle? The victims better watch out for those bayonet mounts and the flash suppressors. Br-r-r-r-r!

    Just think of all those murderers who make sure to fix bayonets before doing their particular killing. And suppressing the flash I'm sure is of paramount importance to them. Those folding stocks, well, of course they speak for themselves. And all those murders where the firearm had a grenade launcher on it, jeez. Lord protect us from those horrible pistol grips! Detachable magazines, of course much more dangerous than the built-in ones. I wonder where the M-1 Garand fits in this scheme.

    What is it about those defining characteristics that creates a compelling state interest in regulating the manufacture, sale, and purchase of such firearms?

    I could see an argument about those pesky high-capacity magazines, although no high-capacity magazines were used in the Connecticut school shooting, but they're not part of the definition.

    • Viet Vet

      When the so-called Assault Weapons Ban was being debated and negotiated back in 1994, the democraps had several more guns, including shotguns, on the list of weapons that would fall under the so-called assault weapons definition, and the M1 Carbine was on that list.

      • Aaron

        M1 Carbine != (not equal) to M1 Garand. Two completely different rifles.

        • Viet Vet

          That's why I said M1 Carbine and NOT M1 Garand. The Carbine has a detachable magazine.

  • elfiii

    This is the circular logic being used against guns and gun owners –

    There are 300 million guns owned by tens of millions of Americans who have committed no crime.

    There are tens of thousands of mentally ill people in America who might go postal.

    We cannot take away the liberties of the mentally ill because they have broken no law, therefore we must take away the liberties of the gun owners because they have broken no law.

  • Robert Pinkerton

    Left-Liberalism is one out of a cluster of possible expressions of an Aristo complex, i.e.: They view themselves as, or are consumed by a desire to be, Aristocrats in a society that codifies aristocracy by law and custom.

  • MAC

    I do agree that one of the original concepts of the 2nd amendment was to allow it’s people to defend themselves against their own government. They had just used guns in the hands of the populace to wrench free from the “tyranny” of Great Britain”, and they wanted to assure that the new government would be held in check by the people and the fact that they were armed. They didn’t want to supplant one set of tyrants with another.

    But for why people are doing this… the world, and the US is a really crowded place right now, and we are raising children pumped full of violence from the tv, from games, books, advertisements, where it is cool to be a killer and kill. At the very least, it desensitizes some, and plants ideas constantly. There is a focus on sex, and love surrounded by violence, but not much gentle caring community.

    It seems in our recorded history that there have always been deviants, and that mental illness is a part of having a mentality. And, we have a culture that promotes those values that people utilize to slaughter.

    • Viet Vet

      The "legalizing" of abortion and the great extent to which it is practiced these last 40 years, must also have a great desensitizing effect on the populace, especially on certain minds.

  • Rob

    It's all academic ping-pong. We're not accepting another useless assault weapons ban. PERIOD.

  • Dr Frederick Wolf

    Here is an idea…given that…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…then should a crime be committed by use of a firearm, let the accused stand trial in a military court (according to the UCMJ) conducted at the state level by members of the State Guard/National Guard. No civilian (ie liberal) lawyers & judges; just military officers. Send those convicted to hard labor or in murder cases that result in conviction to a firing squad/ hanging as the command sees fit. Let gun ownership= militia membership=subject to military law in cases of criminal use of a firearm. Seems to me its about time to make certain that militia described in the Second Ammendment is "well regulated" when it comes to criminal misuse of firearms.

  • George

    lets just be glad that they didn't use shootguns, loaded with exoit ammo, any of these bans will never prevent that from happening