No assault rifles for any citizens except cops and military...

C

CanadianKid

New member
The key word is assault...aka hunting rifles still allowed for all hunters....

Who would disagree with me?

This is to see if your a liberal/conservative/lieberman democrat on gun laws...

CK
 
CK, how about defining "assault rifle" for us.

The federal government's definition was a joke when they passed the legislation the last time.
 
Under the old assault weapon ban in the US what did and did not make a weapon an assault weapon was more cosmetic than anything. Whether I have 10 round mags or 40 round mags it will not matter, in an AR-15 I can eject and replace a mag in about one second. If I have them taped together I can do it faster than that. I own an AR-15 and as of yesterday an semi automatic AK 47 with collapsable stock. I have them because I like firing them. There is something very zen like in being able to hit targets at 300 and 400 meters. I also believe that I have right to defend myself against my government should that need arise, and whether or not I will be successful in ultimately resisting it I will make my time doing so costly to the enemy. My family and my GF's family are all gun owners, we take safety very seriously. THere is no legitimate reason why law abiding citizens should not be able to even own machine guns with a proper background check without having to pay for the FFL and the outrageous premiums that the federal government charges to have those weapons. If you don't like assualt weapons don't get one, but chances are you will live your whole life and never see or hear one fired illegally in anger.
 
Assault rifle would be something like AK-47, Sawed off shotgun, machine guns, automatic pistols, basically any weapons you can get off Counterstrike the game or any other number of games....

Basically any rifle that you wouldnt normally use when you go hunting....

CK
 
Socrtease said:
Under the old assault weapon ban in the US what did and did not make a weapon an assault weapon was more cosmetic than anything. Whether I have 10 round mags or 40 round mags it will not matter, in an AR-15 I can eject and replace a mag in about one second. If I have them taped together I can do it faster than that. I own an AR-15 and as of yesterday an semi automatic AK 47 with collapsable stock. I have them because I like firing them. There is something very zen like in being able to hit targets at 300 and 400 meters. I also believe that I have right to defend myself against my government should that need arise, and whether or not I will be successful in ultimately resisting it I will make my time doing so costly to the enemy. My family and my GF's family are all gun owners, we take safety very seriously. THere is no legitimate reason why law abiding citizens should not be able to even own machine guns with a proper background check without having to pay for the FFL and the outrageous premiums that the federal government charges to have those weapons. If you don't like assualt weapons don't get one, but chances are you will live your whole life and never see or hear one fired illegally in anger.
Click to expand...

Very well said. I do not currently own any firearms that would qualify under an assault weapons ban. My Ruger Mini-14 would have, but I sold it. (accuracy was not up to what I wanted it for)

But I am looking at a few rifles that would qualify. I agree about it being a zen like satisfaction to be able to hit targets at longer ranges.

YOu also pegged it when you talked about defending yourself and your family against whatever threats may come (including our own government).

The previous legislation was a joke. Prior to that piece of junk, the murders committed by people using "assault rifles" was less than 1% of all homicides. During the ban the rate was roughly the same. And it is still less than 1% of the homicides committed in the USA.

So the legislation is just a piece of showmanship designed to make people think that the politicians are trying to help.

But its a scam.
 
CanadianKid said:
Assault rifle would be something like AK-47, Sawed off shotgun, machine guns, automatic pistols, basically any weapons you can get off Counterstrike the game or any other number of games....

Basically any rifle that you wouldnt normally use when you go hunting....

CK
Click to expand...

Any shotgun with a barrel less than 16" long is illegal now. Machineguns require special permits and tax stamps that are VERY hard to get.

So half of your examples aren't legal for the overwhelming majority now.

As for automatic pistols, do you mean fully automatic (hold the trigger and it keeps firing until out of ammo) or do you mean autoloaders (one round every time you pull the trigger?).

As for the AK-47, the 7.62x39mm round it fires makes an adequate deer hunting cartridge. It is shorter than most deer rifles, so it would be good in close cover or dense woods. Its also very reliable.

And just as an FYI, there are almost no firearms that aren't used to hunt some animal.

I am looking at an AR15 type rifle for coyote hunting. They are very accurate and allow for a quick followup shot or a shot at a second animal.
 
Solitary said:
And just as an FYI, there are almost no firearms that aren't used to hunt some animal.
Click to expand...

As an FYI to you Solitary, I agree that any firearms have been used to hunt a deer at least once in its existence....

That does not make an AK-47 a hunting rifle...So that excuse that you used is a red herring.

Here is the wikipedia definition:

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and SVT-40. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47, the M16 rifle, and the Steyr AUG.
 
CanadianKid said:
People dont use the M-16 or the AUG to hunt moose ok buddy...

CK
Click to expand...

No, but an AR15 is the civilian model of the M-16, and I know of several people who use them to hunt coyote and other medium to small game.

That is precisely what I plan to do.



But calling out brands and models is not what a ban is going to do.

Is it the muzzle energy being between a handgun and a high powered rifle?

Is it the fact that it is a semi-automatic rifle that is clip fed?

Is it the length of the barrel?

Is it the caliber?




The previous ban was on "semiautomatic rifles which accept a detachable magazine are classified as "assault weapons" if they have two of the five following features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher, threaded barrel for flash suppressor."


CK, maybe you have heard of driveby bayonet attacks? I guess they must be rampant but are being kept quiet by the conservative press, huh?

How about all those civilian grenade launcher attacks? Maybe that is another government coverup? I think I read that a rifle mounted grenade launcher is what brought down the World Trade Centers on 9/11/01.

Folding stocks and pistol grips are cosmetic items that are easily done whether there is a ban or not.

And the fact that a rifle has a threaded barrel is not a danger. You will notice that it said "threaded barrel for flash suppressor, not a ban on flash suppressors.



This whole idea tha banning weapons will change things is pure bullshit.
 
Solitary said:
This whole idea tha banning weapons will change things is pure bullshit.
Click to expand...


Its sure worked for alot of countries like Canada, Japan, Europe in general, australia...

It seems like the countries with the most weapons per capita are the most violent countries... i.e. Iraq, Afganistan, USA, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Haiti

CK
 
CanadianKid said:
Its sure worked for alot of countries like Canada, Japan, Europe in general, australia...

It seems like the countries with the most weapons per capita are the most violent countries... i.e. Iraq, Afganistan, USA, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Haiti

CK
Click to expand...

Comparing different cultures and countries is ridiculous.

Also, if you will look at the RATE of violent crime per capita, you would see that the UK and Australia's have been rising while ours have been falling.

Also, if you will look at the places in the USA where the violent crimes are the most common, you will see that places with less restrictive gun laws have lower violent crime rates.

This idea that someone who is willing to murder someone will not do so because of a gun law is insane. And you are willing to leave common hunting weapons out here in our hands.

Do you realize that the average handgun wound is lethal about 30% of the time, but the average shotgun wound is lethal over 85% of the time?




The main concept is that it is the CRIMINAL with the gun that you need to worry about. People like me, Soc, Epi, or USC are not the threat. In fact, in the event of some disastor (natural or manmade) we armed citizens may save your life.
 
CanadianKid said:
Its sure worked for alot of countries like Canada, Japan, Europe in general, australia...

It seems like the countries with the most weapons per capita are the most violent countries... i.e. Iraq, Afganistan, USA, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Haiti

CK
Click to expand...

Aso, have you looked at the factors that really account for the violence in most of those countries you named?

Iraq and Afganistan are war zones. Zimbabwe, Somalia, and Haiti are some of the poorest nations around and have had multiple coups that changed the government. Especially in Somalia and Zimbabwe, the high murder rate would be more accurately termed as military than civilian.


But where does Switzerland fit into your "banning guns means less violence" scheme?

They REQUIRE their citizens to own assault rifles and have ammunition. They have more civilian shooting contests per capita than any nation on earth. And yet their violent crime rates are some of the lowest.


Tell you what, CK. You go and Google Kennesaw GA and Morton Grove IL. Tell me why those two cities are linked, and then we will continue this little debate.
 
Solitary said:
The main concept is that it is the CRIMINAL with the gun that you need to worry about. People like me, Soc, Epi, or USC are not the threat. In fact, in the event of some disastor (natural or manmade) we armed citizens may save your life.
Click to expand...

I dunno how much guns helped save the disaster caused by Katrina, the Tsunami in Southeast Asia or the earthquakes in China...

Smells like a load of shit...

CK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top