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.
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.
SWAT Team?
Quote:
Authorities say Duncan shot and killed Stamps, a 68-year-old grandfather, when he lost his balance and accidentally pulled the trigger.
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.
Mostly because when a cop pulls his/her gun, the stress level is high.
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. I'm an instructor. It's my job to know and teach my students to stay out ot trouble. A Ruger 10/22 can be an assault weapon.
at a local competition, the swat team came out for a shootout. the only one worth his salt was the sniper, but when he enetered the sniper competition he came in 7th place, behind even my 12 year old daughter.
Nope, I've just seen first hand what an assault weapon can do to a human body. I actually love the 2nd amendment.
Wrong again.
You know what happens when you ASSume.
The first premise is a false one, since the weapons being referred to and subject to reinstating the prior ban are not assault weapons ... i.e. fully automatic. Fully automatic "machine guns" have been restricted since 1934, and have since been subject to licensing for possession by a select few. Semiautomatic weapons which are not actually "assault weapons" are the class being fraudulently labeled assault types for the purpose of the ban, based on nothing more than visual appearance.
Furthermore, I dare say a chainsaw can do just as much harm to the human body as an assault weapon, even though you can do a great deal of damage with a baseball bat, and DEAD is DEAD, even without a single sign of trauma ... so in that regard, it's of little import .. other than emotional plea, of what an assault weapon can do to the human body. A non assault weapon can do just the same damage, which only requires more trigger pulls.
With the tone of your statements, I find your "love" of the 2nd Amendment to be highly dubious at best, and more likely a purposeful deception.
We have many who "claim" to support the 2nd amendment that also support and defend gun restrictions of various types and degrees which seems to suggest a fundamental lack of understanding of the English language, at least to the extent of not understanding terms like "Shall Not" .. and .. "Infringe".
Just as importantly, such people also have a fundamental lack of understanding of "incrementalism", and how a right can be lost altogether by allowing it to be slowly whittled away, in small steps, by authorities who's intention is to do just that ... eliminate that right. That's why it is important to reject such incrementalism even when the small restriction of the right seems to make sense.
As an example, the loss of firearm ownership for convicted felons seems to make perfectly good, rational sense, when felons are described as violent criminals. Yet, as the laws have become more broadly and liberally applied to what constitutes a "felony", to include all sorts of non-violent offenses, more and more people who pose no such threat of violence now fall under such arbitrary loss of rights.
This set the stage for the incremental expansion of these restrictions to include certain classes of misdemeanor crimes too ... and now, according to the BATF, the law abiding citizen who legally possesses a license for medical marijuana is also prohibited from gun ownership. Given that absurdity, what's next ... anyone with a speeding or parking ticket could lose their rights too? The error here was allowing the law to be compromised to begin with ... " .... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There was no "except for" or "under certain common sense exclusions" included in the language.
The reality is, there is no such thing as a "limited restriction" ... there is either the authority to restrict or not. Yes or no ... not maybe ... not in certain limited situations ... either yes, or no.
For the true "lovers" of the 2nd amendment who also have a grade school grasp of the English language, the answer MUST BE NO ... there is no authority to restrict ... i.e. "Shall Not Be Infringed", even if that is inconvenient at times.
Liberty can be a messy proposition, and not always convenient, but it is far better than the alternative.
That's not what the law says at all. I'm an instructor. It's my job to know and teach my students to stay out ot trouble. A Ruger 10/22 can be an assault weapon.
That's the true definition if you want to get technical about it. A semi can't be one, thus it's not regulated under the NFA of 1934 AND Class III.
Exactly, and that's where the true ignorance lies in this debate.... The true morons point to the 2nd Amendment and decry that their freedoms are being infringed upon..
Well news-flash. You aren't sitting there whining that you cannot own an ICBM, so obviously you understand that there's a limit to what arms one can own.
The question is simply a matter of where the line is on what arms one can own. I don't mind arguing that point at all, but don't hide behind the 2nd Amendment here. It's a very misleading and disingenuous argument.
I'd say a very reasonable limit on handgun ownership for concealed carry is whatever the local constabulary police force deems necessary for it's officers. In NYC that would be the Glock 9mm (although the feds are stepping up to the .40 caliber.)
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.
The term is used broadly because most people don't know the correct definition under the law. None of the above are definitely assault weapons based on the limited description. I can legally own any of those guns and buy them brand new in a Massachusetts gun shop right now. Massachusetts has a permanent assault weapons ban that mirrors the Federal ban. Care to take a shot again at explaining why an AWB makes sense?
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.
