benny 0
Holy shit, I'm no longer for gun control, I want my f%$#ing m-16! Hell yeah, rock on!
Now it's getting scary.
never pull low......unless you are
QuoteQuoteQuoteso we should be able to have m-16s?
The short answer is yes... and you can, if you are willing to put up with the hassle of it...
J
Holy shit, I'm no longer for gun control, I want my f%$#ing m-16! Hell yeah, rock on!
Back up a minute. No one said they thought that YOU should have the right to own a gun.
QuoteAnd FYI - the M-16 is not full-automatic.
Yes and no. The M16 is a select-fire rifle, but depending upon the variant (and there have been several dozens), the rifle may have safe/full-auto, safe/semi/full, safe/semi/full/burst or safe/semi/burst. That just covers the trigger group, lots of other variations have been used with differences in sights/mounts, stocks, barrel lengths/contours, muzzle breaks, flash reducers and even calibers.
mike
Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.
Michele 1
QuoteDidn't the cops go to the local gun store to get better weapons. So those would be legal weapons available to the public through legal means which are better than the cops' guns?
If I am seeing that part right than the problem is with the decisions made in outfitting your police department and has nothing to do with any ban.
That's definitely a point. From what I understand, there have been steps taken to outfit that particular department (LAPD). But the issue remains, the bad guys have the weapons.
I would also say that the gunstore did not have fully automatic weapons - they were banned for public sale, which means they couldn't stock them. So even though the cops managed to get some serious firepower, it wasn't matched to the bad guys in the least.
Ciels-
Michele
~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~
Zenister 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteso we should be able to have m-16s?
The short answer is yes... and you can, if you are willing to put up with the hassle of it...
J
Holy shit, I'm no longer for gun control, I want my f%$#ing m-16! Hell yeah, rock on!
good!
now go do a few years service and learn how to use it properly.
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteI ask again...what do you think the definition of assault weapon is as it relates to the bill?
IMHO... full auto? large clips? Can shoot through buildings?
As I thought - you are making judgements about so-called "assault weapons" based upon intentionally misleading perceptions put forth by the anti-gun folks, and an ignorant or complicit news media.
The majority of the public has been tricked into believing as you do. You are not alone. However, you and they are all wrong.
The long-standing military definition of an "assault weapon" is indeed one that fires on full auto. However, the anti-gun politicians hijacked this term and now use it to mean something else, entirely. This was intentional to create confusion in the public, to get them to support the anti-gun proposal.
The definition of an "assault weapon" under this new law, is this; a firearm that has two or more of the following features: removable magazines, folding stocks, bayonet lugs and/or a flash suppressor.
Note that none of those things has anything to do with what you thought. They are all just cosmetic features that can make them look like military firearms. In other words, they're banned because they "look" scary to anti-gun people. None of these features has anything to do with rate of fire, power, or anything else related to killing potential. They're just semi-auto firearms which function the same as any others, without those cosmetic features.
You've been bamboozeled by the anti-gun organizations and the major news media, who haven't given you the facts.
Don't take my word for it. Read it here for yourself, what the definition of a "assault weapon" is. Go to definition 30 (B):
Definition of an "Assault Weapon"
Now that you know the truth, are you going to change your opinion about these so-called "assault weapons"?
JohnRich 4
QuoteSo what REALLY is the gun show loophole? Besides no background checks....
What it really is, is a "private sale" loophole. They've just put a pretty red ribbon on the name to fool the public into believing that it is really all about something else, so they'll support it.
Gun dealers at gun shows are already required to do background checks, just like they do in their stores.
Only private citizens are exempt from that requirement. But if one of those private citizens is selling firearms repeatedly, then it constitutes a "gun business without the proper license", and he can be prosecuted. So the only people exempt are those selling a few guns, on rare occasions, in order to upgrade collections, trade for something else, and so on.
They just don't want the public to know that, because more people would be against it if it was actually called what it is - a ban on private sales.
If they get this one passed, then the next "loophole" will be private sales away from gun shows. Their ultimate goal is to force every single gun transaction to go through a federal background check, through the police. That would keep hunting buddies from selling guns directly to each other, and prevent dads from directly giving their sons guns for gifts. None of those types of transfers are a crime problem, and they should be left alone.
Furthermore, some of these gun show proposals want a three-day wait for purchase of a gun. And applying a three-day wait to a two-day weekend gun show, will (do the math) kill gun shows.
This is all lawful commerce, and studies show only a miniscule number of crime guns come from gun shows. They should be left alone!
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuotePlease tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill?
Well I would gather from the posts here that the main points have to do with clip size. My personal definition is closer to rifles that are primarily designed for killing people instead of game.
And what is it about a rifle design that makes it more suitable for killing people versus animals?
Military snipers use Remington 700 bolt-action rifles, which are also a very popular hunting rifle.
The rifles don't know what they're "supposed" to be used for.
The AR-15 looks somewhat like a military M-16, so it's been classified as an "assault weapon". That's despite the fact that it is the most popular firearm used in high power rifle competition around the country. Another rifle is called the Mini-14, and it is *not* an assault weapon. Why? Because it doesn't have a little thing on the end of the barrel called a flash suppressor, nor a pistol grip stock. But both the AR-15 and the Mini-14 shoot the same ammo, have the same magazine capacities, the same semi-auto functionality, and so on. The only thing that makes one an "assault weapon" and another not, is a few cosmetic features. This is all BS.
See attached photo for visual comparison.
JohnRich 4
QuoteThese weapons weren't choosen to be banned simply because they were "scary looking" as JohnRich keeps regurgitating from the NRA...
I have never quoted the NRA on this.
I provided a reference to the actual text of the law as passed by Congress.
That text proves that the ban is based upon cosmetic features.
Take an AR-15 with a 20-round magazine and a flash suppressor. The manufacturers quit installing the flash suppressor, and presto-chango, like magic, it's no longer an "assault weapon". It's pure cosmetics, based upon what anti-gun folks consider to be "scary". The lack of the suppressor makes it so it doesn't look as much like a military rifle any more. But it still functions identically, with all the same capacities and rate of fire.
JohnRich 4
QuoteThe gangs on the streets were litterally mowing down people (police in particular) with these devices... Now, all law enforcement has to do is find them with the banned devices and they go to jail with yet another charge against them.
Let's see, the gangs weren't afraid of violating the law against mass murder, yet you think they're going to be intimidated by a little ol' law about having a bayonet lug?
You think that there is something to be gained by charging someone with a minor technical gun crime, when they are already charged with murder?
What a fanciful view of gangs.
Besides, all firearms that possessed those features prior to the passage of the ban, were grandfathered as legal. We can still own them and sell them. So the simple possession of a pre-ban firearm with those features isn't even a crime.
JohnRich 4
QuoteThese weapons weren't choosen to be banned simply because they were "scary looking" as JohnRich keeps regurgitating from the NRA...
For people with an open mind, more information HERE.
Oh look! How quaint! You are derisive toward the NRA as a source of valid information, yet here you are citing the Brady Campaign.
Don't look now, but your double standard and hypocrisy are showing again.
Holy shit, I'm no longer for gun control, I want my f%$#ing m-16! Hell yeah, rock on!
Never go to a DZ strip show.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites