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.
They're designed to take out as many "targets" as possible in a very short time. You don't even need to be a marksman (or woman) to use one, just point in the general direction of what you want to hit and "fan".. Where's the sport in that?
If someone wants to own one, fine.
Here is where you are wrong. And I'm no fan of assault rifles (for other reasons).
My Browning automatic rifle (BAR) I use for hunting. Its a semiautomatic 30-06 rifle.
Its the exact same gun, and operates in the exact same way as most other semi-automatic assault rifles.
The difference is, you can buy 100 round magazines for the assault rifle, the gun, how it looks, its muzzle guards, etc is pointless. Its the fact that you can put such a large magazine on it.
Restrict the production of large magazines and their sales, and it will help with these kind of psychotic incidents.
End them? No, never will. Help to lower the amount of people they can shoot without taking 5 seconds to reload, yep. 5 seconds in a gun fight is an eternity.
Removing all assault rifles is silly, one semi-automatic rifle is really no different from another. Restrict the magazine size you can sell for it.
I'm a gun owner, I have several, handguns as well as rifles.
For the life of me, I can see no logical reason for the public to own assault rifles.
If you can, please elaborate.
I'm a gun owner, I have several O/U shotguns.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own handguns or rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several single shot 22 LR target rifles.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own shotguns, handguns or centerfire 'sniper' rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several black powder muzzle loader rifles.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own modern firearms.
Does that make any more sense that what you posted? Just because you don't own something or want to own it you're Ok with banning them.
Quote:
First they came for the Gypsies,
and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Gypsy
Then they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Martin Niemöller
I'm a gun owner, I have several O/U shotguns. For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own handguns or rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several single shot 22 LR target rifles. For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own shotguns, handguns or centerfire 'sniper' rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several black powder muzzle loader rifles. For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own modern firearms.
Does that make any more sense that what you posted? Just because you don't own something or want to own it you're Ok with banning them.
There is no need for a clip to carry more then 10 rounds, ever in the civilian world.
Target shooting, hunting, or even pure enjoyment, reload your gun.
Don't allow idiots like this guy into a crowded theater easy access to clips that can allow them to send 100 rounds into the air without a reload. Yeah, dropping one clip, putting in another may take 2, 5, or 10 seconds, might be longer (most of these guys aren't professionally trained). But if those few seconds are enough to save one life, its worth the outright ban of large magazines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiRob There is no logical reason to own Assault weapons and they were created with the intent to kill. I can understand there use in a combat situation but I think our "forefathers" would be shocked how the "Second Amendment" has been abused!"
See my above post and do some research, they are not really assault rifles, only being called that to serve the purpose of those that seek to restrict them to whip you up into a frenzy.
Sure there is. They are fun to shoot. I am going out in a few minutes to shoot a couple of Lewis Machine Tools AR-15s I just picked up to add to the arsenal. They have the new "Defendar-15" stocks which legally converts them to full auto (ATF approved). I think I have about 15 ar-15s and ten ar-10s, in addition to 15 m1 carbines, ten m1-garands, several german mausers and G 43s, M1-As, 03 Springfields, 30-30 lever actions, .45-70 lever actions as well as several shotguns and about twenty five handguns. This, of course, does not include the .22 rifles and pellet guns, which we do not count as actual guns.
Why do I have this number? Because I sold quite a few about three years ago.
If you shot these weapons , you would have a good time. We are mostly target shooters and only hunt hogs in Texas. Most of the people at our range are cops, national guard, or active duty military guys. They can many times give you a few good pointers and are interesting people to chat with. Shooting is a social event and a good hobby which is far less dangerous than horseback riding, mountain climbing, or probably even bike riding. Given that these activities are more dangerous, one should consider, if interested in public safety, banning horses, bikes and preventing people from mountain climbing. Cheerleading, of course, is the most dangerous "sport" and should be banned as well.
I could have bought your argument that shooting a gun is fun---my husband enjoyed it---until you got to the part about banning horses and mountain climbing because they are more dangerous. No one ever fell off a horse or mountain and killed another person in the process. That argument is as illogical as the OP's first post. Try again.
I'm a gun owner, I have several O/U shotguns.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own handguns or rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several single shot 22 LR target rifles.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own shotguns, handguns or centerfire 'sniper' rifles.
I'm a gun owner, I have several black powder muzzle loader rifles.
For the life of me I can see no logical reason for the public to own modern firearms.
Does that make any more sense that what you posted? Just because you don't own something or want to own it you're Ok with banning them.
I have practical reasons for my choice of weapons, please see post #33.
I never said that I wanted to ban them, I just see no practical use for them.
Assault rifles don't do much to jets, smart bombs, and non conventional weaponry.
Ask the Taliban.
Sure, you may be able to outlast a foreign power occupying your homeland. You can raise a stink for hundreds of years, Southerners did for a century.
After April of 1865, many ex confederates took up arms in guerilla type warfare against the United States for years. But in the end they all died out, and things went back to one union.
You can't outlast your own country as an occupying power. For one, most people won't support your revolution, for another, weapons have grown beyond that assault rifle need.
The founding fathers warned against a large standing army, as being a tool of tyranny. Along with fear being used by tyrannical governments to get people to go along with that desicration of liberty.
Cut defense spending, or your assault rifle doesn't mean a damned thing.
No not really......
Nukes just prevent anyone from tthe use of the land futher after the bombing.. Nukes are no good for that very reason.
No dictator will use a nuke for that very rweason, because he will still want use of the land.
Sadam used chemical weapons on the serbs since he could wipe them out and still have controll of the land a short time later.
The 2nd is in place because of what it says in the Dec of Independance. I know you know this.
The 2nd is not for hunting and I know you know that too, and if a ban were to be declared and all shooters had to have muskets or nothing, the Govt would still have modern arms and that is exactly why we can have the same modern arms.
In WW-2 the Japanese only avoided a landing on the west coast because they knew there was a rifle like their own behind every blade of grass.
Our Fore Fathers knew the world changed, they were not stupid farmers as some people think, and were true seer's of a new and modern world coming after their time.
Ben Franklin knew there was electricty but didn't know how to harness it. These men saw metal parts of thing getting made and used many of them. They knew mechanisation was coming and with a set standard so any fittings would also be a standard.
In some ways they knew more about how things work than modern man does today. That warning about the large standing army hasn't weathered well over the years, but never the less all able bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 are still a inactive part of the Militia.
It's too bad 'we' are not required by law to have M-16's M1's or M-4's on us or in our homes at all times.
I am sure i would not want to defend myself or the state and country with a Musket, while i do happen to own 2, while the bad guys were using anything more modern.
And while the military does OWN the air, you gotta come down sometime, and in the case of a civil war there would be no place to come down to, AND that is providing the Military break the law and their oath!
A good man with a good rifle can stop a battalion for a long time, or take out the top and stop any action for a very long time, while the rest of the heads try to think.
If you don't own the ground it really doesn't matter what else you do own.
Here is where you are wrong. And I'm no fan of assault rifles (for other reasons).
My Browning automatic rifle (BAR) I use for hunting. Its a semiautomatic 30-06 rifle.
Its the exact same gun, and operates in the exact same way as most other semi-automatic assault rifles.
The difference is, you can buy 100 round magazines for the assault rifle, the gun, how it looks, its muzzle guards, etc is pointless. Its the fact that you can put such a large magazine on it.
Restrict the production of large magazines and their sales, and it will help with these kind of psychotic incidents.
End them? No, never will. Help to lower the amount of people they can shoot without taking 5 seconds to reload, yep. 5 seconds in a gun fight is an eternity.
Removing all assault rifles is silly, one semi-automatic rifle is really no different from another. Restrict the magazine size you can sell for it.
They're designed to take out as many "targets" as possible in a very short time. You don't even need to be a marksman (or woman) to use one, just point in the general direction of what you want to hit and "fan".. Where's the sport in that?
If someone wants to own one, fine.
You are wrong, completely wrong. When I want to cause total carnage I will use a 9 shot shotgun. Sure you have to be a lot closer but 00buck will make one hell of a mess out of an old refrigerator. When I bought my first AR-15 years ago I started out just acting like Rambo and blasting as many rounds off as I could. That got old fast and cost a lot of money. I now use My AR-15 for nothing but target practice one round at a time.
But pumping 9 rounds out of a shotgun is a hell of a lot of fun and also a little scary. You could hurt a lot of people in a very short period of time.
If that dirt bag holmes would of went into that theater with two tactical shotguns and say a couple of 45 acp pistols I do believe a lot more people would have died.
Here is where you are wrong. And I'm no fan of assault rifles (for other reasons).
My Browning automatic rifle (BAR) I use for hunting. Its a semiautomatic 30-06 rifle.
Its the exact same gun, and operates in the exact same way as most other semi-automatic assault rifles.
The difference is, you can buy 100 round magazines for the assault rifle, the gun, how it looks, its muzzle guards, etc is pointless. Its the fact that you can put such a large magazine on it.
Restrict the production of large magazines and their sales, and it will help with these kind of psychotic incidents.
End them? No, never will. Help to lower the amount of people they can shoot without taking 5 seconds to reload, yep. 5 seconds in a gun fight is an eternity.
Removing all assault rifles is silly, one semi-automatic rifle is really no different from another. Restrict the magazine size you can sell for it.
There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle".
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.
