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.
Thanks for pointing out the danger of these firearms.
They are not dangerous. My guns have never shot anyone. I am glad you don't own a gun. I don't think that you are stable enough. Blaming something on an inanimate object is nonsensical. Have you thought about seeking help?
Curious title.....and then saying nothing in the article about that particular manufacturer except in the picture description.
But, as said by others, A and then my B.
A: An assault rifle is capable of shooting more than one round on one pull of the trigger. The Bushmaster AR-15 doesn't have that capability. In order to have a rifle like that, such as an M-16, one has to pay thousands of dollars.
B: We are essentially looking at something like Bell UH-1 and the Bell 204/205. The first is a military helicopter, the second is that helicopter developed for the civilian market. The second is also built by Agusta and Fuji just as the AR-15 is built by Bushmaster, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Rock River, etc..
So say I wanted to go after someplace, cause destruction. Would I want to do it with the military model, be it UH-1 gunship or an M-16 or with the civilian model of the 204/205 or the AR-15?
They are not dangerous. My guns have never shot anyone. I am glad you don't own a gun. I don't think that you are stable enough. Blaming something on an inanimate object is nonsensical. Have you thought about seeking help?
Yet gun fanatics use the nonsensical argument to point out the danger of cars. If one need to fire 40 rounds within 30 seconds, perhaps they shouldn't be hunting at all.
Yet gun fanatics use the nonsensical argument to point out the danger of cars. If one need to fire 40 rounds within 30 seconds, perhaps they shouldn't be hunting at all.
I find it curious that the very people who argue that guns are needed to fight a tyrannical government, give up fighting those who really are killing our citizens (mass shooters).
Where in the Constitution or within that amendment does it restrict the arms by type? The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clear about things not enumerated or explicitly governed by the federal government, so the answer is pretty simple to figure out.
At the time of the 2nd Amendment's writing, the private citizen could and did own cannons, otherwise known as anti-material/personnel fixed artillery. The bazooka (since replaced with many things, currently the M136 AT4 single shot recoilless weapon) is a subset of that and man-portable. It's useful for essentially one thing - punching a hole into heavy armor or other fortification and doing damage on the other side of that armor/fortification.
There's only one entity that would have anything to fear from a private citizen owning a platform that can reliably punch holes into heavy armor and wreck stuff on the other side of it - the government. The 2nd Amendment, as we all know from history, was added to make sure the private citizen could always defend against that which the oppressive government might wish to throw at them.
Bottom line, yeah, the 2nd, 9th and 10th absolutely cover recoilless smoothbore platforms. Government has armor, citizen retains their natural right to own property that can defeat that armor, government now respects citizens' rights to defend themselves against possible intended foolishness.
Where in the Constitution or within that amendment does it restrict the arms by type? The 9th and 10th Amendments are very clear about things not enumerated or explicitly governed by the federal government, so the answer is pretty simple to figure out.
At the time of the 2nd Amendment's writing, the private citizen could and did own cannons, otherwise known as anti-material/personnel fixed artillery. The bazooka (since replaced with many things, currently the M136 AT4 single shot recoilless weapon) is a subset of that and man-portable. It's useful for essentially one thing - punching a hole into heavy armor or other fortification and doing damage on the other side of that armor/fortification.
There's only one entity that would have anything to fear from a private citizen owning a platform that can reliably punch holes into heavy armor and wreck stuff on the other side of it - the government. The 2nd Amendment, as we all know from history, was added to make sure the private citizen could always defend against that which the oppressive government might wish to throw at them.
Bottom line, yeah, the 2nd, 9th and 10th absolutely cover recoilless smoothbore platforms. Government has armor, citizen retains their natural right to own property that can defeat that armor, government now respects citizens' rights to defend themselves against possible intended foolishness.
Yeah right. How did that work out for the religious sect Branch Davidians in Waco?
I find it curious that the very people who argue that guns are needed to fight a tyrannical government, give up fighting those who really are killing our citizens (mass shooters).
Who said I was giving up?
A number of years ago, I was involved in a new technology project that went of for 3 years or so for SWAT responses to school shooters. That directly addresses the topic but my work goes on and on.
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.
How did that work out for the religious sect Branch Davidians in Waco? 