Assault weapons bans - liberal emotional reasoning (Iraq, Afghanistan, soldiers)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, gotcha. Yeah, my definition of "assault weapon" is considerably narrower as the original ban seemed to focus on many things that were appearance oriented rather than functional. I've also yet to see a good definition of "assault weapon" any way...I guess if I bashed someone on the head with a rock then that would be an "assault rock"...
I guess I'm always unclear what people mean when they say "these sorts of weapons"...as I've found most people who say that are. Not saying that applies to you, just an observation.
I do have hunting rifles that are far more powerful than most any military sidearm or rifle...more range, more knockdown power and more accurate than anything in the arsenal short of military sniper rifles. Most big game rifles are stronger than what most people would call an assault weapon...
It is that PC thing again. Change the name, to make it better, or in this case worse than it originally is. It is a mind game they play with names. Pulling one small word from a single sentence can be 180º of the original intent of the sentence.
I have the same as you. To me, the 2nd amendment, gives me the right to own any gun I wish, fully automatic, or not. You could privately own a cannon in the 1800's, why not now?
Disarming the peasants, lets those with arms, force anything they wish on the peasants.
A 6 inch group will get you laughed off the range. Find me a high power semi-auto for 400 bucks? I can find an SKS for that on gunbroker.com usually in 5 minutes.
That's bull crap. A 6" group from 10 yds. yeah, that'll get you laughed off the range. A 6" group from 125 yds. w/ iron sights, on an AK, that's some pretty good shooting. i would like to see what you get w/ an AK w/ iron sights @ 125. You're more than welcome to come on down to any three gun or comp. we have next month. As they say, money talks. BS walks. And for the record, it will be my FN 45, FN SCAR & Benelli M4.
And sure an SKS on gunbroker is dirt cheap. And there's a reason why...it's an SKS, not an AK.
I could bring a VZ-58 and outshoot the AK any day of the week, but I still like the AK better.
Agree, which is why I don't own an AK. But I sure do like the sound they make, and the reliability they have. However, for anything other than a medium range (30-60 yds.) contact, I would not want to be using one.
That's bull crap. A 6" group from 10 yds. yeah, that'll get you laughed off the range. A 6" group from 125 yds. w/ iron sights, on an AK, that's some pretty good shooting. i would like to see what you get w/ an AK w/ iron sights @ 125. You're more than welcome to come on down to any three gun or comp. we have next month. As they say, money talks. BS walks. And for the record, it will be my FN 45, FN SCAR & Benelli M4.
And sure an SKS on gunbroker is dirt cheap. And there's a reason why...it's an SKS, not an AK.
Dude, I wouldn't be shooting a comp with an AK. Toot your horn all you want if you feel better but I know some guys that can almost do that group with a target BOW.
This is getting off topic.
The reason why people shoot that old hard ball cr*p is because it's cheap.
The AWB had nothing to do with emotions or reason and everything to do with controlling the masses by disarming the law abiding of the most effective urban weapon available to citizens.
First they came for the fully auto weapons, and I didn't protest, because I didn't have one.
Then they came for the semi-autos, and I didn't protest because I didn't have one.
Then they came for the revolvers and I didn't protest because I didn't have one
Actually, all he did was quick change mags and pull a pistol.
I have a couple of hunting rifles that can do that...for instance, a Remington model 788 built in 1969 or 68--wood stock, bolt action, 3-round magazine, scope, basic hunting rifle.
It has a mag--check, I can quick change them. Of course, they aren't 30 round mags, but I can change them every bit as quick.
I have two arms--I can do the tacticool arm hold keeping my barrel toward enemy while I whip out my also tacticool pistol while maintaining eyes front with a serious look on my face.
I have a sling on my rifle--I can whip it around my back and start using said pistol.
I don't have the black jacket to complete the look, though. And the rifle has a blond wood stock, isn't plastic and doesn't have a flash suppressor, so no, I guess I can't do that with my hunting rifle.
A 6 inch group will get you laughed off the range. Find me a high power semi-auto for 400 bucks? I can find an SKS for that on gunbroker.com usually in 5 minutes.
yes, a 6" grouping at 125 yards with iron sights, and using an AK47 is pretty damn good shooting. 6" grouping at 125 yards with an M14? my niece who has never shot a gun can do better than that. the point here is that the AK47 was not designed to be a sniper rifle, or be accurate beyond 100 or so yards. it was designed to be reliable under as many battle conditions as possible, and to put as much lead down range as possible. it was designed essentially as a man portable machine gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LookinForMayberry
Personally, I would love to see America mature to the point where we could give up these toys, but in lieu of that, I have no problem of banning any unnecessary firearm. Clearly, we can defend our personal property, and supply our table with wild game without automatic weapons.
People who want to pretend they are in the military should join the armed forces and let our youngsters come home.
while this is true, it is also true that automatic weapons are fun to shoot
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
I can't wait to take my Tank squirrel hunting.
got some big assed squirrels in your area do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WatermelonRat
No, I am in favor of the ban because they have no legitimate use. I support the right to own a firearm (I actually own a rifle I use for target shooting). I am fully supportive of the right to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and sport shooting and the right to own hand guns for self defense, but I cannot support allowing the ownership of military grade assault rifles. They simply serve no legitimate purpose for a civillian (aside from "dude, check out my new AR-15, I'm so badass!). They aren't designed for sport or defense, they're designed to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible.
the original intent of the second amendment was not just personal defense. it was to ensure that the people could rise up and overthrow an out of control government, as well as allow the people to help the military defend our borders in a time of war. have you even noticed that since the mexican-american war this country has not been invaded by a foreign power? that was one of the reasons that the japanese armada did not invade hawaii as was originally planned, that and the carrier force was not eliminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
An assault rifle is fully automatic. A machine gun.
A AR-15 and AK-47 are single shot per single pull, just like any other gun allowed to be in citizens hands.
Guns don't kill. The people without self control, ill parenting and no gun safety education, are the ones that kill other humans.
the AK47 has three positions, safety on, semi auto fire, and full auto fire. you are thinking about the SKS, the semi auto version of the AK47. and i agree with you that guns dont kill people. they require a human agency to activate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
It is that PC thing again. Change the name, to make it better, or in this case worse than it originally is. It is a mind game they play with names. Pulling one small word from a single sentence can be 180º of the original intent of the sentence.
I have the same as you. To me, the 2nd amendment, gives me the right to own any gun I wish, fully automatic, or not. You could privately own a cannon in the 1800's, why not now?
Disarming the peasants, lets those with arms, force anything they wish on the peasants.
actually you can own your own cannon if you like. i doubt however that you will have room to store a 105mm howitzer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73
I think it's cute that people try to equate the gay carbine courses and shooting competitions with real life gunfighting.
yep. paper targets dont shoot back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
