I wasn't.
Just watch the repercussions of the Tucson shooting
- Thread starter old_man
- Start date
You can't...
- Location
- Wasatch Range
Urban, you nailed it......those irrational American government officials are at it again. What you call "fear-based'' activity seems to have a lot of logic and facts associated with them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47565.html
The fiercest gun-control advocate in Congress released the text of a bill she plans to introduce next week that would outlaw high-capacity magazines.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) bill also goes further than than the assault weapon ban that expired in 2004, outlawing the sale or transfer of clips that hold more than ten rounds, even those obtained before the law takes effect.
http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/0...-slip-high-cap-mag-ban-into-faa-funding-bill/
Looks like all my 15rd mags that I've owned for 20yrs are at risk of becoming illegal.
Just to play devil's advocate -- if you need an assault rifle to protect your home than might I suggest you're living in the wrong neighborhood. Alternatively, if you need a high capacity magazine to take down a deer than maybe there's something seriously wrong with your aim.
Milford Cubicle II
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Out there.
NO neighborhood is immune from danger genius. Having an assault rifle or other means of protecting your property and family is called cheap insurance, considering the price of you or your family's life.
If you don't want to take steps to be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones then don't. But I don't condone getting in the way of those who do.
I would hate to have to depend on you if I was your child or spouse.
If you don't want to take steps to be prepared to defend yourself and your loved ones then don't. But I don't condone getting in the way of those who do.
I would hate to have to depend on you if I was your child or spouse.
Ralph
NAXJA Member #149
- Location
- Lubbock, Texas
The entire point to the right to bear arms has to do with the right to self protection. Every creature, from rabbits to elephants, will defend themselves if threatened. Humans are no different. This is what is called a natural law. In this age the threats to one's safety are such that one must have the means to defend themselves or the law is meaningless. We cannot depend on the state to take care of us. We can only depend on ourselves. We have to depend on ourselves to defend ourselves from criminals and for when there is a breakdown in society. We see this fact on the news today with the breakdown in Egypt. We've seen it in our own country after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. It's happened before, it's happening now and it will happen in the future. It can happen anywhere. When it does and you have people coming through your door and you are the one standing between them and your loved ones you will want something in your hands a little more powerful than a baseball bat. And why shouldn't you have it? Is your life or the lives of your loved ones so unimportant that you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourselves?
If you like collecting assault rifles, great. If you need an assault rifle to feel safe than you're probably living in a real shithole.... in which case, it might be time to give remax a call.
Jeepman401
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Lisbon CT
Why do you assume everyone who owns a gun does it to protect themselves? Competitive shooting is a sport.
I could kill someone very easily with an ice skate. Should hockey be banned?
I could kill someone very easily with an ice skate. Should hockey be banned?
I believe the previous posters implied self-defense; therefore, yes - if you need an assault rifle to feel safe in your neighborhood than you're living in a real shithole. It's time to move somewhere a regular handgun or rifle will suffice.
What percentage of competitive shooting involves assault rifles opposed to pistols, and where does the NRA draw the line? I guess anything that boosts stagnant gun sales must be welcome. Considering firearms are very durable products, you guys need to find new ways to sell weapons to the public. Why not assault rifles right?
I'll give you my ice skates when you take them from my cold, dead feet.
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
most people living in shitholes like that are living there because they can't afford to live anywhere else. The rest are the reason why the place is a shithole, and probably dealing drugs / involved in violent crime.
You live in Canada and it's winter, they aren't like that already? Hand em over!
the skates, not the feet. I have no use for your feet.
... though perhaps then you would admit de-feet
Ralph
NAXJA Member #149
- Location
- Lubbock, Texas
It is already illegal to own an assault rifle without a special license. An AR15 is not an assault rifle. An M16 is. They look similar but they are not the same.
If you agree that a person should be able to have the means to defend themselves why shouldn't they have the most technologically advanced weapon they can afford? Is their life less valuable than a soldier or policeman's life?
If you agree that a person should be able to have the means to defend themselves why shouldn't they have the most technologically advanced weapon they can afford? Is their life less valuable than a soldier or policeman's life?
FIrstly we should get the assault rifle term straightened out.
Assault is an action, not a weapon. It's a rifle.
If I pick up a hammer and assault someone with it, do I now own an assault hammer?
Secondly, why are we even still having a conversation with the canuck?
He lives in Canada, I don't really care what he has to say about our politics or my right to bear arms.
Last edited:
msrorysddad
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Texas
Bravo 87. The main issue with certian individuals, is, they want to use key words for their weak kneed arguements.
Assault rifle, they should ban assault sticks, bricks, and bats.
The main issue is some people truly believe you and I cannot make decisions without some benevolent government making the choices for me. If I gave up the evil looking rifles, then as soon as the government decided I don't need to hunt. Certian individuals would jump on the bandwagon. They are hopeless, and helpless.
It's useless for people to debate the facts with individuals like that. You, to them do not have the right, no not even the mental ability to control something as "evil" as an "assault rifle". It boils down to the simple issue of, do you want the government making all your decisions for you.
3% is all it takes
Assault rifle, they should ban assault sticks, bricks, and bats.
The main issue is some people truly believe you and I cannot make decisions without some benevolent government making the choices for me. If I gave up the evil looking rifles, then as soon as the government decided I don't need to hunt. Certian individuals would jump on the bandwagon. They are hopeless, and helpless.
It's useless for people to debate the facts with individuals like that. You, to them do not have the right, no not even the mental ability to control something as "evil" as an "assault rifle". It boils down to the simple issue of, do you want the government making all your decisions for you.
3% is all it takes
old_man
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Loveland, Colorado
I guess I have a hard time believing the stupidity of some people. They think that just because there is a law or a ban that the problem will magically go away simply because it is against the law.
It is against the law to murder someone, but they still did it. If it was against the law to own a gun, would they magically abide by that law? The government with all its resources has failed to keep murder from happening, how are they going to keep you from secretly keeping a gun?
It is against the law to murder someone, but they still did it. If it was against the law to own a gun, would they magically abide by that law? The government with all its resources has failed to keep murder from happening, how are they going to keep you from secretly keeping a gun?
Awww! now you hurt my feelings... err....assaulted my feelings.
Jeepman401
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Lisbon CT
For one, assault rifle is a term invented by the anti gun lobbyists to make them sound evil.
Quite a bit of competitive shooting is done with military style rifles. There are entire events for them. Don't forget, your basic bolt action rifle once was the forefront of military technology.
As for people moving to a better neighborhood, You can buy a decent AR-15 for $1200, lets see you move for that. If it makes someone sleep better at night, so be it.
Now as far as using an AR-15 for home defense, it wouldn't be my first choice, but I am 5'11" 275lbs. Take for instance my 5'1" Girlfriend. She wont shoot my .357, its too much for her, same goes for most of my other handguns, and my shotguns. But give her my AR, and she has no problem hitting most anything. Different guns for different scenarios.
We wouldn't want semantics to offend one of the most powerful lobbyists in US by now would we? God forbid the NRA got butthurt.
Does she have one these fancy Hello Kitty AR-15s?
We wouldn't want semantics to offend one of the most powerful lobbyists in US by now would we? God forbid the NRA got butthurt.
Does she have one these fancy Hello Kitty AR-15s?
You just made my point. You consider that an "assault weapon" but according to the DOJ and the state of California it isn't, because it does not have a pistol grip.
So tell me, what functionally about that AR-15 is different than one with a pistol grip?
Same ammo
Same magazine
Same action
But one get's labeled "assault rifle" because it has an "evil" feature.
So there you go, that AR you posted isn't an assault rifle, and you just proved that assault weapons bans/gun control are pointless, because the people writing the legislation don't have a clue about firearms, and a firearm can very easily be changed to comply with the law without compromising it's ultimate function, putting lead downrange.
Edit: And yes, I just got another stock set for my homebuilt AK so I could paint it pink and put strawberry shortcAKe (get it? Capitol AK) on the stock for my wife.
Ralph
NAXJA Member #149
- Location
- Lubbock, Texas
The "assault rifle" distinction is important because the argument of why civilians need weapons carried by the military is being made. The point is that some of these weapons may resemble military weapons in appearance, but they do not in function. Military weapons, "assault rifles", are not legal for civilian use without a special license.
Websters on-line Dictionary definitions:
Assault rifle
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
* A carbine sized individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
* Capable of selective fire.
* Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
* Ammunition is supplied from a large capacity detachable box magazine.
Assault weapon
The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". In its technical sense, the term Assault weapon refers to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.
Now that the definitions have been cleared up, the argument is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the natural law of self defense. If you agree that a person has the right to defend himself with a firearm, there is no reason why a limit should be put on what kind of firearm he should use.
Websters on-line Dictionary definitions:
Assault rifle
The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]
* A carbine sized individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
* Capable of selective fire.
* Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
* Ammunition is supplied from a large capacity detachable box magazine.
Assault weapon
The term Assault weapon is derived from the term assault rifle, itself a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr, literally "storm-rifle". In its technical sense, the term Assault weapon refers to a military weapon used to aid in military assault operations, that is, attacking a fortified position (as referenced in multiple uses in military terminology below). Legislators and political lobbyists have adopted the term to refer to specific semi-automatic firearms and other firearms listed by specific characteristics for statutory purposes. The legislative usage follows usage by political groups seeking to limit the individual's right to keep and bear arms, who have sought to extend the meaning to include a semi-automatic firearm that is similar in name or appearance to a fully automatic firearm or military weapon. Note that this term is not synonymous with assault rifle, which has an established technical definition. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms, commonly referred to as gun rights supporters, generally consider these uses of the phrase assault weapon to be pejorative and politically-motivated when used to describe civilian firearms. This term is seldom used outside of the United States in this context.
Now that the definitions have been cleared up, the argument is a red herring. It has nothing to do with the natural law of self defense. If you agree that a person has the right to defend himself with a firearm, there is no reason why a limit should be put on what kind of firearm he should use.
Similar threads
