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.
I agree on the AK platform, hence why my backup rifle, and the backup-backup are AR platforms AR15 and AR10, oh except for the Mini 14 and M1A, both also accurate and reliable as they come.
Ya know, I need to check into Camp Perry and see what's going on there these days. Our military used to concentrate heavily on marksmanship. Our riflemen were the very best in the world. The 03 03 bolt action 30 06 was called the "silent death" by the enemy.
In the hands of a US GI it made the enemies facing it quiver. The British SMLE 303 had a similar reputation. And the German 8mm 95 Mauser was no slouch either. Viet Nam saw the military buy in to the area fire over aimed fire concept. A doctrine that the USMC has always refused to follow. They still train riflemen. The M4 is not general issue. It's the M16 A4. A 20 inch tube with a fixed butt. Made to aim and place where it needs to go.
As I've said before, the AR is a very accurate rifle. It will run with it's forebears easily especially if properly chambered. It is Americas rifle. It's the platform serious shooters have gone to. Most everyone I know has at least one. It is indeed just a natural evolution of things.
Because if you stick to debating terminology, you are not challenged with having to advocate for the ubiquity of guns that fire at an extremely high rate.
Ya know, I need to check into Camp Perry and see what's going on there these days. Our military used to concentrate heavily on marksmanship. Our riflemen were the very best in the world. The 03 03 bolt action 30 06 was called the "silent death" by the enemy.
In the hands of a US GI it made the enemies facing it quiver. The British SMLE 303 had a similar reputation. And the German 8mm 95 Mauser was no slouch either. Viet Nam saw the military buy in to the area fire over aimed fire concept. A doctrine that the USMC has always refused to follow. They still train riflemen. The M4 is not general issue. It's the M16 A4. A 20 inch tube with a fixed butt. Made to aim and place where it needs to go.
As I've said before, the AR is a very accurate rifle. It will run with it's forebears easily especially if properly chambered. It is Americas rifle. It's the platform serious shooters have gone to. Most everyone I know has at least one. It is indeed just a natural evolution of things.
I am attached to the M14. Well now the M1A............
The capability of a weapon to fire at a high rate does not depend on the user any more than the speed a car can go is dependent on who is behind the wheel. Capability is the key term here.
The problem with this definition is that ALL semi-autos can be fired as fast as a full auto.
I've really got to be moving on now, but before signing off, let me just point out the folly in your comment here...
There are people who break all our laws all the time, but is this a good argument for not having laws?
Also, again, it makes little sense to compare guns to cars when it comes to the issues or practicality of banning either.
Of course how fast a car travels will depend on who is driving the car. I mean does ANYONE really think that needs explaining? No, but the capability of a car to travel at X speed does NOT depend on the driver. Right???
If somebody wants to buy a car that can go 200 miles per hour, they don't need to figure out how hard they can press the pedal in order to determine whether that model car can go 200 MPH.
Does this really need explaining? I guess so, but really? I've not the time for that...
You can't from a practical standpoint ban cars that people might use illegally, like travel too fast, but you can ban guns that are capable of high rates of fire without the same problem(s) from a practical standpoint.
Again, right or wrong, effective or not, that is sound reason and logic that should need no further explanation...
You can't ban cars but we can ban guns. Interesting. Point you missed significantly isn't a matter of pushing the gas pedal ingenuity. I can take a left handed bolt action sight it in shooting right handed and work the bolt with my left hand. I'll shoot it pretty damn quick. Pump actions too.
AR15s are practical. I can dispatch multiple hogs. I can engage multiple targets in competition. Is there a problem with that? There better not be.
So much for that argument pertaining to practicality
How about simply addressing the issue intended. Like weapons that are capable of high rates of fire and simply define what high rate of fire is deemed too high? Something like establishing a speed limit on the freeways...
You certainly don't need to get into all types of cars simply to make it illegal to drive faster than the designated speed limit. Right?
I almost got into the reasons you can't ban cars that can exceed the speed limit like you can ban guns that exceed a certain high rate of fire, but I know better. Banning guns doesn't have the intended effect as far as I can tell anyway, so most of the arguments in gun threads are little more than academic for me...
Actually, the sale and purchase of assault weapons is illegal in the United States without a class 1 federal firearms permit. Assault weapons are defined as a weapon capable of sustained fully automatic fire.
Assault rifle can therefore, be a misleading term. Some people don’t consider a rifle on semi-automatic an assault rifle. In fact you can very quickly discharge a frightening number of bullets on a semi-automatic setting.
Well the Maryland legislature has decided that an AR-15 is most definitely an “assault weapon”. From where do you get your definition of “assault weapons”?
"From where do you get your definition of “assault weapons”?
Where do YOU get yours?
"Well the Maryland legislature has decided"
In other words the MD legislature has MADE UP a definition, just like other liberal states.
Being such a liberal anti -gun state no one is surprised.
P.S,I AM from MD.
Several liberal states have done likeliwise.
That does NOT mean that it is accurate.
It has been posted MANY times that the term is a POLITICAL created definition.
"According to Bruce Kobayashi and Joseph Olsen in the Stanford Law and Policy Review: "Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles".
The top one. Id state why but I'll wait for the antis to come and argue why I am wrong and let their ignorance be on display...
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.
ingenuity. I can take a left handed bolt action sight it in shooting right handed and work the bolt with my left hand. I'll shoot it pretty damn quick. Pump actions too. 