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.
So what you're saying is you don't know what an assault weapon is under the law. Since you're a former police officer this is not surprising. I have an AR-15 and it's not an assault weapon. Having said that, can you explain how an assault weapons ban makes sense?
Only a "select fire" rifle is a assult weapon. A semi auto is JUST a semi auto.
That's not what the law says at all. It's magazine fed semi auto and has two or more of the following features:
adjustable stock
flash hider
pistol grip
bayonet lug (all those drive by bayonetings have been devastating)
grenade launcher
it does not suprise me at all that the politicians do not even know what an assault rifle is, and they want to ban certain types of rifles based upon their looks and nothing else.
you should move and get out of that communist state Rick.
dont get me wrong, I do know cops that DO know how to shoot and shoot very well. but for the most part, cops are very poor shooters, even the swat team here suck at their shooting.
You have to be in the wrong place. The gun shops and gun shows around here are full of them. Guys hanging out, drinking coffee on their time off because they WANT to be there and are having fun. They also buy a ton of s*** too.
So what you're saying is you don't know what an assault weapon is under the law. Since you're a former police officer this is not surprising. I have an AR-15 and it's not an assault weapon. Having said that, can you explain how an assault weapons ban makes sense?
No, i meant exactly what I said, Rick. The term is used broadly.
January 7, 2010—Disgruntled employee Timothy Hendron, 51, enters ABB Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri and opens fire on his co-workers. Armed with two handguns, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle with high-capacity ammunition magazines, Hendron fires approximately 115 rounds, killing three and wounding five before taking his own life.
July 13, 2009—A birthday party in Miami shootout involving a semiautomatic AK-47 in which two young people were killed and 10 wounded.
July 16, 2010—the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Kevin Livewell by gunmen wielding two semiautomatic assault rifles (an AK-47 and SKS) with 30-round magazines.
There is no practical reason why anyone needs to own a weapon of war.
No, i meant exactly what I said, Rick. The term is used broadly.
January 7, 2010—Disgruntled employee Timothy Hendron, 51, enters ABB Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri and opens fire on his co-workers. Armed with two handguns, a shotgun, and a semiautomatic AK-47 rifle with high-capacity ammunition magazines, Hendron fires approximately 115 rounds, killing three and wounding five before taking his own life.
July 13, 2009—After a birthday party shootout involving a semiautomatic AK-47 in which two young people were killed and 10 wounded, Miami Police Chief John Timoney tells ABC News.
July 16, 2010—the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Kevin Livewell by gunmen wielding two semiautomatic assault rifles (an AK-47 and SKS) with 30-round magazines.
There is no practical reason why anyone needs to own a weapon of war.
none of the weapons used are assault rifles. please let us know when you understand that.
Ah, two peas in a pod ... the first pea thinks a Tank in in the same family as a freaking rifle .... YOU ... never to be one upped, engage the liberal-lack-of-logic next progression to an ICBM.
And you wonder why a reasonable conversation is impossible with you all?
Pick an RPG Tex.... The argument I'm making doesn't change. There IS a line there regarding what weapons/arms you CAN and CANNOT own.
The only thing you succeeded in doing here is completely missing my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
We need a constitutional amendment banning left wing lunacy as much as we obviously need the 2nd amendment .... though to be fair to the founders, they could not have possibly anticipated the depth of public ignorance we would one day face from the repressive-regressive-progressives.
What "progressives" seem to understand is that the 2010s are NOT the 1780s... We tend to give the founding fathers a break in that they could not have possibly anticipated modern circumstances, and thus we do our best to apply their 18th Century reasoning to 21st Century America... Technology IS a game-changer with regard to applying the Constitution in some respects (especially with respect to the 2nd Amendment).
Really, I mean take the 2nd Amendment to the letter and yeah, you're allowed to have an ICBM, or a tank, or an RPG, etc... Well, you and your fellow Conservatives SEEM to have accepted the fact that no, in fact you are NOT allowed to have certain heavy weaponry. So the bottom line is that you get that there IS a line. Argue to your heart's content over where that line should be. I don't really care.
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.
