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.
My solution is to not restrict my rights, but to ask, why more people wouldn't exercise their right, to have protection from the loonies(they are every where) with them just in case... You never know in this dog eat dog world we live in today.
My 1911 has been going more and more, with me.
No one in that theater was armed. Just think if everyone in the theater was armed. He would not have thought about stepping foot in there.
Thankfully I do not live in the kind of environment that you describe. My environment is considerably different, but potentially just as dangerous. More of a "bear eat moose" type of environment than "dog eat dog."
With a gun-grabber in the whitehouse embolding people to start calling to ban assault weapons, I have a question.
What makes this:
More dangerous than this:
They both put identical bullets downrange at identical velocities. Since F=ma, the damage caused by these rifles would be identical. Yet the top one is demonized because it "looks scary". Does that make any sense whatsoever??
A better question:
Why is this
More dangerous than this
The first one is an assault weapon under the 1994 Federal ban. The second one is not. Let's hear it experts- why is the first one more dangerous?
A well trained anyone is dangerous with any decent weapon. I prefer my k98k with ZF39 scope.
They sure are. This one is JUST for the folks in the other thread who seem to think those four thugs never getting out of their vehicle is a passage to being "a victim" and completely innocent. It shows not only that you don't need to get out of a vehicle to fire, you can take cover with the vehicle and use it to your own advantage. The less folks know about weapons and "what" can be done, the more harm they are. I hope to hell none of them get picked for jury duty in that guys case.
"They didn't find a shotgun".....so they must be innocent.
Well...no duh...if it was a illegal sawed off shotgun, they sure didn't want to get caught with it. That's an added Federal charge to whatever else they might have done.
With a gun-grabber in the whitehouse embolding people to start calling to ban assault weapons, I have a question.
What makes this:
More dangerous than this:
They both put identical bullets downrange at identical velocities. Since F=ma, the damage caused by these rifles would be identical. Yet the top one is demonized because it "looks scary". Does that make any sense whatsoever??
How about the collapsible stock, higher fire rate, the shorter barrel length, pistol group, and the high capacity [30 round magazine]. Should I continue or do you get the point? They are both dangerous and the caliper is the same but the purpose is different.
The first one is an assault weapon under the 1994 Federal ban. The second one is not. Let's hear it experts- why is the first one more dangerous?
I don't know if you are referring to the magazine size, but the Romney gun ban mentions AR-15 by name, so the magazine size would not matter. Romney-Ban bans both of the above rifles today in MA. It matters with handguns though, because he also banned larger capasity magazines for handguns.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 12-05-2012 at 05:05 PM..
How about the collapsible stock, higher fire rate, the shorter barrel length, pistol group, and the high capacity [30 round magazine]. Should I continue or do you get the point? They are both dangerous and the caliper is the same but the purpose is different.
The rate is the same in the semi auto configuration of the hunting rifle and the magazines will interchange.. Buy yeah,,,, It looks real scary... woogy boogy....
The first one is an assault weapon under the 1994 Federal ban. The second one is not. Let's hear it experts- why is the first one more dangerous?
Actually both of your illustrations were banned in 1994.
A semi-auto with two or more of the following items, telescopic stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, and the ability to accept a detachable magazine. Your picture at the bottom has two or more of the above...
BUT
That is besides the point since the law was silly and totally ineffective.
Remove the flash suppressor and voila a perfectly legal "assault rifle"
If the day comes when someone shoots up a movie theater with their vote,killing and maiming 70 people,your idea may have merit.
guess what, politicians made those laws, not the people. it is also the right of the business to limit firearms if they want. it is also the theaters responsibility if something does happen to protect those people.
if everyone in that theater would have been armed, do you really believe that that jerk would have attampted to do what he did, somehow i think not.
That's not completely true. A 5.56mm NATO SS109 M855 can't be fired in a .223 Rem weapon. It can/could blow it up. What makes the AR more dangerous? A well trained U.S. Marine. That civilian "hunting" rifle isn't in the same league.
I disagree. My Mini 14 digests either without complaint. The military ammo is loaded a tad hotter. Still no problem.
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.
