Define an "assault weapon"

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by yubba

been a escort for crew off the USS. Pathfinder, .

yubba! Now I have this image in my head of yubba in a short skirt, suspenders stockings and heels. yubba's escort service.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

So that's what you think I own my AR-15 for Neal? Like Fatseas says in the preceding post:

So, now because I own these so called "assault weapons", people can pass judgement on my personal character or psychological makeup? Through the internet even?

Well how condescending and ignorant you are Neal Stevens.

Sorry, August. I didn't mean to upset you. But the manufacturer of these guns seems to think they know why you own an assault rifle.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushma...-card-campaign

[August]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Sorry, August. I didn't mean to upset you. But the manufacturer of these guns seems to think they know why you own an assault rifle.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushma...-card-campaign

Well lots of jerks on both sides of the debate seem to think they know why I own an assault rifle. Apparently you seem to think you know as well.

Well I've said why I own one. Can you accept it or is the 2nd Amendment a big joke to you too?

[eddie]

Originally Posted by August

Well lots of jerks on both sides of the debate seem to think they know why I own an assault rifle. Apparently you seem to think you know as well.

Well I've said why I own one. Can you accept it or is the 2nd Amendment a big joke to you too?

Your sounding more like a spoiled child, just because people don't agree with you. Who cares why you own an assault rifle!!

[August]

Originally Posted by eddie

Your sounding more like a spoiled child, just because people don't agree with you. Who cares why you own an assault rifle!!

I'm just continuing to argue my position. That's ok with you?

[CaptainMattJ.]

Assault rifle and assault weapon are two different things. an assault rifle is a weapon firing rifle rounds, but with the capacity to go fully-automatic.

There's no reason to have it anymore. Times have changed DRASTICALLY since the bill of rights was instated. There is no reason to have unrestricted access to weapons of all creeds. There is no reason to have automatic weapons for civilian use. the reasons for a militia are almost non-existant. Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun restrictions yet haven't turned to tyrannical dictatorships or anything of the sort. There were more legitimate reasons back in 1789 to have a civilian militia, when we had no standing army. Now with a pretty much permanent army and a fully democratic government where the MAJORITY leads, absolutely no reason to have militarily-armed civilians. Zero.

There are many uses for handguns. There are uses for semi-automatic rifles (hunting especially). None, however, for assault weapons.

My uncle for instance owns a semi automatic AK-47 that is not capable of automatic fire. He only has 10 round clips. in that sense it is a rifle, firing rifle rounds. and isn't an assault weapon. if that AK-47 was automatic and/or he used 30 rounds clips, then it's only proper purpose is to kill or injure GROUPS of other people. You don't need fully automatic weapons and you don't need high capacity clips. Not for self defense and not for hunting. The ease of faking your way through tests and owning an assault weapon on the other hand, is allowing for easier access to weapons designed for killing/injuring MANY people in very short amounts of time.

I was one of the first people to point out that banning assault weapons won't stop these things from happening. But it will help deny these people these military-grade weapons that can cause untold horrors in no time at all.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Well lots of jerks on both sides of the debate seem to think they know why I own an assault rifle. Apparently you seem to think you know as well.

Well I've said why I own one. Can you accept it or is the 2nd Amendment a big joke to you too?

August, I'm sorry, my remarks were not very well-suited for this situation.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

I was one of the first people to point out that banning assault weapons won't stop these things from happening. But it will help deny these people these military-grade weapons that can cause untold horrors in no time at all.

Curious, though, how come these nuts more often than not come armed with pistols and perhaps a rifle instead of bigger stuff? Or is it just the media calling an automatc weapon "a rifle", much like they tend to call an SMG a "machinegun".

[Armistead]

The liberal news keeps reporting why no one needs an assault type weapon with larger clips, stating the power and destruction of the gun. That's enough reason for me to have the right to own one. No matter the ban, criminals can still easily get these guns off the street, I should have the right to meet the criminal on equal footing.

In past years, police often went against criminals with AK's, AR's, etc, often fully auto and they often lost because they didn't have the firepower to fight back. Finally, many officers were allowed to carry equal firepower. If you think it seldom happens, try watching youtube....

We have millions of illegal true assault weapons coming across the border, yet I haven't heard anyone liberal saying let's close our borders down.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

http://www.buzzfeed.com/scott/bushma...-card-campaign

I prove my manhood by ignoring their childish campaign.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Assault rifle and assault weapon are two different things. an assault rifle is a weapon firing rifle rounds, but with the capacity to go fully-automatic.

That's your definition. Most of these tragedies are not committed with fully-automatic weapons.

There's no reason to have it anymore. Times have changed DRASTICALLY since the bill of rights was instated.

Not really.

There is no reason to have unrestricted access to weapons of all creeds.

There is no reason to have a lot of things. Should we ban everything anybody finds "no reason" for?

There is no reason to have automatic weapons for civilian use. the reasons for a militia are almost non-existant.

We don't have automatic weapons for civilian use. You can buy one legally, but only after passing the required criteria and becoming a registered dealer. Again, it's the semi-automatic rifle you seem to find alright that is used most for these crimes. Actually it's plain old pistols that are used most, but you're trying to justify one while condemning the other, so we'll stick with rifles for the moment.

Democracies around the world have unrelenting gun restrictions yet haven't turned to tyrannical dictatorships or anything of the sort.

On the other hand, all the tyrannical dictatorships that are out there exist because the populace of their countries are disarmed.

There were more legitimate reasons back in 1789 to have a civilian militia, when we had no standing army. Now with a pretty much permanent army and a fully democratic government where the MAJORITY leads, absolutely no reason to have militarily-armed civilians. Zero.

Your opinion only. Reread Franklin's legendary quote.

There are many uses for handguns.

Others would argue otherwise. Your opinion (and mine, in this case) is no better than theirs.

There are uses for semi-automatic rifles (hunting especially).

I have to call you on this one. I can hunt just fine with my 5-shot bolt-action 1903 Springfield. Semi-autos that fire as fast as you can pull the trigger are not needed for hunting, or for any other situation.

My uncle for instance owns a semi automatic AK-47 that is not capable of automatic fire. He only has 10 round clips. in that sense it is a rifle, firing rifle rounds. and isn't an assault weapon. if that AK-47 was automatic and/or he used 30 rounds clips, then it's only proper purpose is to kill or injure GROUPS of other people.

Now you're trying to pick and choose, and justify one that is just as deadly as the other. Your uncle can blow off ten rounds in a couple of seconds, and kill a couple of people. Or he can carefully fire one shot per kill, and reload one of the ten magazines (they aren't clips) in three seconds and go on to kill ten more just as quickly.

It is just as much a killing machine as a fully automatic rifle, and experience with both tells me that it's actually more so, as "spray and pray" misses more than it hits. You don't need either one, if you really want to make that argument, and your justifications for one over the other are completely misplaced.

You don't need fully automatic weapons and you don't need high capacity clips. Not for self defense and not for hunting. The ease of faking your way through tests and owning an assault weapon on the other hand, is allowing for easier access to weapons designed for killing/injuring MANY people in very short amounts of time.

How much experience have you had shooting either one? I would say at this point that you don't know what you're talking about.

I was one of the first people to point out that banning assault weapons won't stop these things from happening. But it will help deny these people these military-grade weapons that can cause untold horrors in no time at all.

As I just pointed out, your uncle's "assault rifle" is more deadly than the fully automatic "assault weapon" you so readily condemn.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The liberal news keeps reporting why no one needs an assault type weapon with larger clips, stating the power and destruction of the gun. That's enough reason for me to have the right to own one.

[August]

Originally Posted by Hottentot

Curious, though, how come these nuts more often than not come armed with pistols and perhaps a rifle instead of bigger stuff? Or is it just the media calling an automatc weapon "a rifle", much like they tend to call an SMG a "machinegun".

Part of it is willful misrepresentation by the media and ignorance, but part of it also comes from conflicting terms between rifles and handguns.

A pistol that uses gas produced by the previous round to cycle the bolt and chamber the next round is called an "Automatic" even though it's a semi-automatic in that it produces one shot per trigger pull.

A pistol called a Double Action Revolver also produces one shot per trigger pull but since it uses manual strength to prepare the next round for firing instead of gas it is not considered a semi-auto.

Now a rifle that uses gas but produces one shot per trigger pull is called a Semi-Automatic. When it comes to long guns "Automatic" is reserved for firearms that shoot for as long as the trigger is depressed.

AFAIK there is no such thing as a Double Action Rifle.

BTW even the word Rifle is a misnomer as well. It refers to only the circular groves in a barrel which give the bullet a ballistic spin and can be present in handguns, shotguns and muzzle loaders as well as "rifles".

[MH]

Quote:
You don't need fully automatic weapons and you don't need high capacity clips. Not for self defense and not for hunting. The ease of faking your way through tests and owning an assault weapon on the other hand, is allowing for easier access to weapons designed for killing/injuring MANY people in very short amounts of time.
How much experience have you had shooting either one? I would say at this point that you don't know what you're talking about.

Right...the only reason to own this type of guns is for fun as toy or zombie attacks.
That is if you are living in normal world....not a war zone.
I can understand having shotgun for home defence or hand gun but ak 47?...its ridiculous.

I wonder if you people really believe in what you write here....yet i can understand the need to defend your constitution and avoiding dangerous precedences in legislation but im not sure if bull****ting yourself and others to death is the correct way.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

AFAIK there is no such thing as a Double Action Rifle.

Hmm. I never noticed that before, but now that you mention it...

I'm a big fan of single-action revolvers myself.