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.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speedaddicted
I think anyone who is legally able to own a weapon should be able to excercise thier constitutional right to do so;however, when I hear these BS justifications from the NRA and the Hunters clubs that we NEED assault rifles for hunting purposes....c'mon now who the heck are they kidding.
This coming from someone who owns 2 M4 Carbines.
It would be difficult to deny that there is rhetoric on both sides of the issue that is completely ridiculous. Perhaps an M4 (or anything that fires a 7.62x39) has limited applications beyond plinking enjoyment, military/police and survivalist scenarios (however unlikely those may be), but there is no finer weapon for killing hogs than the AR-10 or the M1. I must concede that I basically agree with what you are saying, but there are real-world applications for semi-automatic, high magazine capacity, high-powered rifles that go beyond sport and certainly are not so ridiculous as "pumping 30 rounds into Bambi." For example, Texas is implementing a ban on hunting any wild animal from any vehicle, airborn platform or floating platform (which I don't like because I've done a lot of duck-hunting in East Texas from a john-boat with a go-devil) with the explicit exception that feral hogs may be hunted from a helicopter. You more or less need AR for that.
What is the point in bringing back a law that didn't work?
Actually, the law worked exactly as planned. It let anti-gun politicians feel good that they "did something". It was never intended to do anything to address crime. It didn't ban actual assault weapons, those are by definition automatic, as opposed to semi-auto firearms and are restricted by the NFA of 1934 and by many states.
All the old ban did was restrict the rights of firearms owners by eliminating specific features on common semi-automatic firearms and outlawed standard capacity mags...which was all it was intended to to. Well, actually, one more thing, to get the public to be more accepting on restrictions of rights and acceptance of government control.
It was never intended to address crime-less than 1% of crimes are committed with "assault weapons".
The .223 is an inherently unstable round,it was purposefully designed to yaw and tumble upon hitting the target.
It was the military's way of getting round being forced to use FMJ.
FMJ rounds aren't particularly good at killing when compared to soft points.
The Soviet version of .223(5.45x39) was similarly designed to yaw so as to cause bigger wounds.
The .223 round is no more or less inherently unstable than any other. It is the specific bullet that the military uses that tends to tumble upon hitting the target (long and heavy for it's bore size), and the high rate of spin imparted by the 1:7 twist common on military arms. Miltary bullets also commonly use a hardened penetrator core for adequate penetration at long ranges. I'm not sure if the current military load (SS-103 IIRC) does.
The same .223 is one of the most common civilian rounds and commonly uses lighter constructed bullets that tend to break up upon hitting the target (typically varmits or paper).
Actually, the law worked exactly as planned. It let anti-gun politicians feel good that they "did something". It was never intended to do anything to address crime. It didn't ban actual assault weapons, those are by definition automatic, as opposed to semi-auto firearms and are restricted by the NFA of 1934 and by many states.
All the old ban did was restrict the rights of firearms owners by eliminating specific features on common semi-automatic firearms and outlawed standard capacity mags...which was all it was intended to to. Well, actually, one more thing, to get the public to be more accepting on restrictions of rights and acceptance of government control.
It was never intended to address crime-less than 1% of crimes are committed with "assault weapons".
Very true....except those who support this law do not state this is their goal,it is to supposedly reduce crime.
I know my 7.62 hollow-point steel rod communist ammo will go through at least 8 inch cinderblock walls, ammo cans, and 2X4s no problem. I had one go through a tree that was nearly two feet in diameter, though I am no expert on tree health
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.
