- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Even if you were an expert...do you think a jury would be so leniant on someone who fired upon a target 500m away? I mean sure if someone was shooting at YOU from 500m, but firing at someone stealing a tractor at 500m away or in a vehicle moving around your land at 500m...come on man. YOu should know that won;t look good.
still diverting
still lying
As shown, the definition of civilian specifically excludes members of the military, members of the police, and members of belligerent groups. Also as shown, civilians have more restrictions on weapons than the police and the military.
1. The political definition of "assault rifle" bordered on the ridiculous. My brother has a little .22. I could turn it into an "assault rifle" simply by attaching a lugnut to the end of it - not that it had a "bayonette mount", it was an "assault rifle" :roll:
2. The best weapon to have when the zombies arise is an M-4 variant with the .306 caliber. Ergo, I need one.
308 caliber?
......
ahem.
shut up. :mrgreen:
mea culpa - too many screaming children in my house today.
I prefer 7.62 x 54r
No issue if you clean your weapon.
well you would be wrong then but that is not really relevant
the only thing that counts is HOW the person who possesses the weapon uses it
and with several hundred legally owned real machine guns in the USA-including many real assault rifles" there are no instances of anyone being killed in decades
true enough but the MNs are inferior to the garand and the modern heavy stuff like the AR 10 or the FN FAL
Please tell me where I am "Wrong".
And...it DOES matter that these weapons were designed with the sole purpose of killing humans.
What...pray tell, is a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE?
"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.
One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "
GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
In many ways , I agree. However...I love my 10 gauge as home defense and piece of mind. I am pleased that my wife has her little .38.
I also know neither will be much use against an AK47 on automatic.
Both my weapons serve an acceptable purpose in my mind...assault weapons have ONLY one designed purpose.
Killing as many people as possible.
Lot of disinformation and factual errors there.
For one thing, the vast majority of what are widely termed "assault weapons" owned by US civilians are NOT capable of full auto fire, only semi-auto.
For another, a shotgun or pistol is NOT "useless" against an AK47 on "full auto". Full auto is not some magic wand. Militarily it is used mainly for fire suppression. Recoil and muzzle climb tend to make most shots after the first miss high, unless we're talking mounted weapons or something.
Put a man with a shotgun vs a man with a "full auto" AK47 and the outcome is going to depend on a variety of things...
Who sees who first
Who shoots first
Who is more skilled with arms and mentally more steady under fire
Cover, concealment, maneuver
Who shoots ACCURATELY first
Range between the two when someone first opens fire
An "assault rifle" has three main advantages over a shotgun: range, mag capacity and rapid reloading. These advantages make it a more versatile weapon but they aren't necessarily the decisive factor in a combat situation.
Please tell me where I am "Wrong".
And...it DOES matter that these weapons were designed with the sole purpose of killing humans.
What...pray tell, is a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE?
"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.
One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "
GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
Two whole cases, and the one that is described was committed by a police officer.... out of many thousands of MGs in civilian hands, this is statistically insignificant.
By the way...
Yes, weapons are dangerous; they're SUPPOSED to be. If they weren't we'd call them something else.
When I buy a weapon for self-defense I'm buying something lethal, something designed to kill, to help me protect myself from another person with a weapon designed to kill. So what?
"Designed with the sole purpose of KILLING HUMAN BEINGS!" (gasp! faint!) This phrase does not horrify me, sorry.
Recently, A Democrat senator suggested that he has no idea why anyone would need to have an assault rifle. His ignorance is the premise of his decision to limit the 2nd amendment. To me the answer is pretty easy.
I would own an assault reason for the exact same reason I would own a superfast sports car that is built to exceed legal speed limits. So that if the Chinese drilling off our coast where we are not allowed to ever decided to sneak soldiers and nukes into the gulf instead of oil rig workers and equipment and invaded Florida blitzkrieg style, I'd have a chance of getting out alive.
Seriously though, would you own an assault rifle? And if so, why?
Let me expand a bit on this whole "designed to kill human beings" thing.
In the event that scumbags kick in my door one night, I don't want to be armed with a deer rifle.
For one thing, a deer rifle (typically 30-06) has MORE capacity to overshoot or overpenetrate than most "assault rifles", if that is a concern in your area (depends on where you live, population density, etc).
For another, many deer rifles only hold three rounds and were not really designed for combat, self-defense, or man-killing.
Double barrel sporting shotguns are also not designed for this purpose. You only get two shots... that might not suffice.
I prefer (depending on circumstances) either a handgun, shotgun or "assault" rifle that IS designed with combat, self-defense, or "killing human beings" in mind, because they serve the purpose in question much more effectively. No, I probably would never need to shoot 30 rounds in a home defense scenario... but I don't want to have to worry about running out of ammo before the scumbags are down or running, and with a 2 or 3 cap sporter weapon I probably would. With a 10 round mag cap I might.
I ran into a pack of aggressive feral dogs one day on my farm, about six of them. Good thing I wasn't carrying a three-shot deer rifle.
I'm really afraid of guns and given my size (4' 11) and my weight an assault weapon would probably knock me on my kiester!
Nah. A 5.56 doesn't have much recoil and the newer models are very light weight. With a little training you could handle one quite readily I'm sure.
stop lying stop diverting
your definition is irrelevant and wrong
federal statute has two categories
military and civilians
you are employing the squid defense-lots of ink and lots of suck
the issue involves the statement by governments
something you have spewed ink and suck at
:lamo
A "lawyer" that not only doesn't believe in the rule of law but can't tell the difference between the police and civilians. Keep us laughing "counselor"!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?