I have to disagree on hunting rifles. A 30-06 runs the risk of going through the bad guy, through the wall, across the street, through the neighbor's wall and through the neigbor.

Not saying anything about ownership, just that it's a bad idea in those conditions. I prefer a good old-fashioned .45.

Take a hike Subman. A 50 cal is the short name most often used for a large machine gun.

Why don't you go back to conspiricy theories about global warming before throwing more of your libel here.

Seriously people. A large shot can still go through houses. What do you need an assault rifle for? You are not facing an army of crooks and if you did it would be close quarters where a shotgun or a pistol will do far more good.

As for that crap that the ban is because the gov is somehow afraid we will rebel with them. I gurandamntee you that anyone with even half a brain is NOT going to bring an AK to a fight. They will bring their deadly rifles and scopes with large bullets that can tear through a tree like it is nothing, Shotguns with buckshot that can do insane damage at close range, And deadly powerful pistols.

Like I said, let's also legalize RPGs and grenades. If .50 cals are OK, why stop there? Hey- let's also legalize MISSLES!

This is a good compressed explanation of Class III weapons and NFA weapons in general.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_III_NFA_firearm


Yes Machine Guns are legal and yes we can own them. However the majority of machineguns are collectibles and do nothing but sit in a safe and look pretty on a wall. Sound supressors are grteat and wonderful tools for reducing noise pollution and preserving your hearing. In Europe it is easier to get a sound supressor than it is to get a firearm.

Also, by definition an "Assault Rifle" (any object can be used for assault) must be an intermediate caliber between that of a pistol and battle-rifle (between .380 ACP and 8mm) and the weapon in question must be capable of slective fire between semi-auto and fully-automatic fire.

Regardless of your opinion, it is legal and moreover a birthright of the responsible law-abiding U.S. citizen to own, posess, and enjoy these firearms in a safe and responsible manner.




Think on this for a minute:

If the government doesn't plan on doing anything bad to us citizens, why are governmnet agencies or special-interest groups so intent on disarming the populace?

Full and absolute bullsh*t.

If a live round brushes or grazes you you'll get a bad burn. If the round actually hits you, depending on where and what your body build is, then yes you're going to be hurting.


Here's a good article for you to read in this link:

Breaking the Myth of One-Shot Stops (Scroll down to the part where you see the revolver firing)

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...eb.htm#page_15

They are.;)

http://www.autoweapons.com/photosn/p...dd1-48rpg.html

Goes though the BATFE as a destructive device.

They are legal in the same way that people can own howitzers and AT-guns.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g83j0JZ_Ld4&NR=1

ETA: Bunch of class III goodness here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z05UF...eature=related

Sorry, I meant a .454 bullet for the magnum, the ones that Taurus Raging Bull's use.

:huh:

I have lost all faith in the judgement of our government.

Why the HELL would you let a citizen own a howitzer?! JESUS. :nope:

If you use good hunting ammo the .223 is a great round for small deer and varmints (depredation of coyotes, and deer weighing in the under 100 lb. range).

But even then, over 100 meters the .223 is NOT a good anti-personnel round. Under 100 meters with USGI ammo the modern .223 military bullet is designed to fragment o a soft target or penetrate light body armor.

Beyond 100 meter the.223 doesn't fragment and just makes small pencil holes, there have been many accounts of repeatedly engaging an armed individual with repeated hits but no apparrent reaction until several minutes later after the firefight has ended.

Even then, you have to consider that most non-law-abiding perps who use firearms do so with handguns and at close range. For most of them they're only practice enough to be accurate enough to hit you with a "spray and pray" method of fire.

People will use rocks and sharp pointy sticks if they have to.

If I have a choice between an AK and an M16 I take the AK anyday. It is the most reliable firearm on the face of the planet.

As far as "deadly rifles and scopes" most people who own deer rifles only dust them off once a year to go deer hunting. Shotguns are nasty buggers to be on the receiving end even if it's just birdshot (which it takes alot of to kill you btw).

You're over-reacting to the very idea of firearms and it sounds like you're very insecure when you yourself are afraid of firearms but cant seem to understand why others enjoy having and using them.

I'm sorry but assualt weapons SHOULD be banned from public use. I mean reall. There's NOT ONE reason that the average joe public needs to have a machine gun !

Did the individuals abuse their right to own these objects and firearms in anyway?

Were they unsafe in their handling/ operation of these devices?

Or spouting rhetoric of committing a terroristic act upon unsuspecting and random citizens?


If not then what exactly is your problem here? These are people who are enjoying themselves with a good time for an experience they'll try maybe 2 or 3 times in their entire life, never being able to own or touch one again!!

Okay then. If "Assault Weapons" are to be banned, how are you going to do so in a reasonable fashion?

If you say they should be restricted to Military and LE only, then what about the Citizen Militia? Everyone in the U.S. that is between the ages of 18 and 60 is subject to being drafted by the state to form a militia corps.

The militia in the days of the early post-colonial British Government had a small standing army with most communities and towns having their own militia of common citizens. Those militiamen were required to provide their own arms and clothing that were of comparable quality and caliber measurement (Ranging from .58 caliber to .70 caliber) and having at least 20 to 50 balls of ammunition and with enough powder to fire those projectiles.

Applying this template today (as it is framed in the 2nd amendment and was practiced in early pre/post-colonial days), this would mean that everyone who is subject to the militia draft must own: one m-16, one Beretta M92, have a uniform, at least 200 rounds of rifle ammunition, 50 rounds of pistol ammunition, have a rucksack, kevlar helmet, belt rig, and plate carrier vest in order to adequately report for duty at least once per year for training and marksmanship qualifications.

In effect, this would create the mirror image of the protocols the Swiss already have.



But wait, there's more:

There's such a thing as the organized (state) militia, and the un-organized (irregular) militia.

How then do you diffrentiate between the two without abrogating the 2nd amendment?

Oh gee, I dunno. Maybe it's the fact that IT'S A HOWITZER. Do you not see the problem with this? Let me make it simple: A civilian is running around with a long-range artillery piece that can destroy a building with no problem. NOW do you understand? What would happen if that thing misfired at a public demonstration? Hmm? What if the shell trajectory was off and caused the shell to land in a town or in a camping area?

Too many risks, and there's no need in it.

Yeah, all good and fair, but like I said, there's too much that could go wrong, and does go wrong. If you keep these things within the public, then accidents are going to happen; very costly accidents. You don't need an RPG or a howitzer, and if you want to see one, go to a museum.

These things are dangerous, but I can tell you I'd rather have a gun incident than an explosives incident.