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.
Amazing, some want the Militia... Our last line of defense when government fails to keep us safe, to be armed with just, kitchen knives, baseball bats, axes, nerve gases, fists, rocks, and cars
I don't know who these people are that you keep going on about, but you sure do keep going on about this "militia" that serves as "our last line of defense when government fails to keep us safe." This may be the first time I've noticed even the suggestion that government has so far managed to "keep us safe," and I sure hope so, because if you and your militia ever become our last line of defense, no matter how big your cannon, we're f**ked.
An assault weapon is: Anything someone else uses, to assault another person. This includes hands & feet.
But the ultimate assault weapon is, ones own mind.
And your mind is just killing me, but seriously folks...
This comment takes us back to the beginning of my thread that was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
Can you maybe elaborate some? What is cause for "truly alarming" as far as you are concerned?
I can well understand how people can just as easily turn to "fists and knives" when it comes to violence given how ALL of us carry around fists and knives are pretty easy to grab in the kitchen, but what is perhaps alarming is how prone to violence we are as humans in general, and then the ultimate problem of killing one another. The number of deaths and serious injury by whatever means is at least some cause for alarm, and the use of guns in this respect tends to get our attention, more and more lately...
It is human nature to no put up with being bullied.
In utopia, there would be no one intimidating others, to gain power over them.
In reality, human nature is to be King.
And your mind is just killing me, but seriously folks...
This comment takes us back to the beginning of my thread that was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
Intelligence is your weak point, when ones own mind is their most powerful weapon.
The goal of government is to get them place within the the 1934 Firearms Act. By reclassifying them by placing words/labels on them, that define them differently than ever before. They are a danger to government power, more than a danger to an armed population.
The only difference is instead of wooden stocks, they have composite lightweight materials, that are ergonomically designed, for easier control. The working part of the firearm, is the same as it has been for over 100 years.
And your mind is just killing me, but seriously folks...
This comment takes us back to the beginning of my thread that was INTENDED to define these weapons to be banned in a manner not dependent on this word "assault." As I suggested, I think the better approach as best I can understand the goal, is to define these weapons in terms of their "kill rate" capability.
The goal, to ban weapons that can kill people at a rate beyond what any civilian ought to possess for purposes of sport, hunting and/or or reasonable defense.
Have I at least got the goal right, for most of us anyway?
Those wanting to argue ANY ban on ANY weapon is not Constitutional need not reply...
One copy and paste deserves another:
No, you don't have that goal right.
Your whole line of thinking ("kill rate" and "reasonable self defense") is ridiculous.....and this is why.
Say we ban all magazines over 10 rounds......that means:
That your theory is a terrorist will only be able to kill 10 people....but not 15. (flawed logic, criminals don't care about laws)
Mass shooters who are intent on killing as many people as possible will always have extra magazines, as Omar Mateen did.
However, someone whose trying to defend their life, home and family can only use 10 rounds.....but not 15. (sound logic, law abiding citizens, by definition would follow the law)
But someone defending their home, half asleep in the middle of the night is probably not likely to be as well prepared with extra magazines at their bedside.
And for the millionth time.....The 2nd amendment is not about hunting or target shooting. And any argument for gun control that uses the phrase "hunting" is automatically invalid.
Who are you to decide what "reasonable self defense" is for law abiding citizens? And why should law abiding citizens be limited to less effective weapons than the people who they will have to defend themselves from?
The argument that needing 30 round mags being unnecessary for home defense is a weak one...people miss, and they miss a lot under high stress situations. This is why you hear of so many police shootings where the police fire dozens or hundreds of rounds in the course of apprehending a suspect....be cause even trained shooters like the police miss a lot under real world conditions.
Essentially, you and all other gun control advocates are looking for a hardware based solution to a software based problem.
They have no clue the AR-15 shoots a .22 projectile. My Barrett holds 30 and shoots a .50 projectile.
If they are lined up and stacked, I can get at least 6 dead and 2 wounded with one pull of the trigger, and I have 30 more pulls.
My BAR shoots a .30 projectile. It has a happy switch, and is capable of belt feed, or mag.
A belt fed BAR? I've never heard of such a thing. Have you got any pictures?
A belt fed BAR? I've never heard of such a thing. Have you got any pictures?
1918 prototype the 1917 water cooled.
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.
