malorn and desync on why America needs Assault Rifles

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GeoGeek @ Feb 22 2007, 04:01 PM) [snapback]394780[/snapback]</div>

I agree with just about everything you stated, except this part. Unfortunately, I can't make change for a fraction of two cents...
Assault rifles are capable of selective fire, depending on the rifle, from one shot, to burst, to semi to fully automatic modes. Assault rifles are standard military issue and ARE therefore by design able (insert human on trigger) to maximize the number of humans killed in as efficient a way as possible without reloading. Average mag size I believe is ~20-30 rounds.
If they're not meant for this purpose, exactly what are they designed for?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 22 2007, 05:29 PM) [snapback]394810[/snapback]</div>

The same exact purpose of any other firearm. To stop a threat. It is simply a tool, how you use it is up to you.

I can throw a hammer at someone, or I can hit them over the head with it.. Pretty much the same effect, yes?

--im just ignoring livlichick.. I don't even know why she is continuing to participate in this thread, she's obviously outnumbered and her ideals are so Anti-American it is nausiating.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]394813[/snapback]</div>

So, there's no line? No firearm should be banned from home ownership?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]394813[/snapback]</div>

Depends on your aim and your distance, I guess - personally I'd rather have a hammer thrown at me than be hit over the head with one. (THat's not an invitation...)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 22 2007, 05:45 PM) [snapback]394818[/snapback]</div>

Well, the way the system is now is just fine.

In order to obtain a hand-gun, you have a waiting peroid in which a thorough criminal background check is done.

In order to obtain an AR, the same applies.

In order to obtain a Class III firearm (fully auto), one must apply, pay certain taxes, go through a very throrough check, and are then open to investigation by the ATF at any given time.

So, correct, there should be no "ban", only regulation, as we have currently.

The way the laws are setup is that it is legal for a citizen to bear arms as long as that citizen is not a felon. If that citizens wants to own a class III, that person must jump through several hoops and follow many rules while owning such firearms.

Of course, one can attend a gun show, and the criminal history background check is conducted right there on the spot - and one can bring home their new firearm... at least where I live.

So, you can't just go get a gun, especially if you're a criminal (not legally, anyway).

The kicker of it all, is that if the liberals did indeed ban firearms, only criminals would be able to get them easily..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Feb 22 2007, 10:41 AM) [snapback]394666[/snapback]</div>

Glock 19 that's a sweet little gun isn't it? I have the high capacity (16&18) mags cause in California you can only get the 10 round mags. My wife, a tiny little asia gal, put a round dead center bullseye first shot ever at 30-35 feet using pistol targets and repeated it on her thrid shot and now many others since then. I will never give up this gun. She keeps it loaded and by the bedside when I'm not in town. Last month we had 3-4 guys from an out of town gang kicking in front doors and robbing residential homes. Wonder how a single shot Taser would work with them? Also with heavy enough clothes the darts on a Taser would not penetrate and I imagine the look on your face would be similar to this ---> :blink: Also in my humble opinion a shotgun is the best home defense weapon loaded with #8 birdshot and #00 buckshot. Only problem is my wife can’t shoot that and I can’t carry it when we go on trips. So I’m keeping the Glock and hoping to pickup a Glock 22? .40 cal and maybe a Ruger .357 Mag with 6-8 inch barrel.

Wildkow

 

I've been reading on this board a lot of posts from individuals who are "pro-gun" about "if the liberals band firearms"... The whole point of the thread isn't about ban of all firearms. Instead, it's about the ban of a select subsection of firearms that are viewed as going to far. This group of fire arms isn't designed for personal protection or hunting. It's designed for military use. IMO, if the criminals already have an assault rifle, it won't make one bit of difference if you have a hand gun, rifle, shotgun, or assault rifle. You'll both still be dead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]394720[/snapback]</div>

My reference to one being in favor of gun control was not meant to profile you but to the majority of Midwest Democrat politicians (and NE and CA politicians too).

Strange, but for you being a Midwest Democrat obviously your stance on right to bear arms cannot be high on your list of priorities. That's OK and to each his own. But you have also in this thread vociferously defended the right for individuals to own a weapon for defense, are completely against gun control (but do favor more restrictions on the very subjective category of assault rifles????). And you still pull the Democratic lever??? You painted yourself into a corner on this one...

I can promise you one thing. Support a Democratic party candidate in nearly any election with the exception of some traditional Southern states and you are pulling the lever for more gun control.

Don't kid yourself Evan, one can very safely assume Obama (or any front running Democratic candidate for President) will favor more, if not, a very radical form of gun control.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Feb 22 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]394829[/snapback]</div>

Check out the Glock 23©. Thats what I own.. .40 cal, w/ a compensated barrel for less recoil and more accurate shooting.

Yeah, livlichick is totally disillusioned to think that a tazer comes anywhere near close to being as effective a firearm.. Tazers are a one shot thing, and if you miss (she probably would), consider it all over..

Shotguns are great, but some women and/or weaker men can't really handle them.. Lots of kick.. Lots of noise..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]394822[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure I agree with your last statement however, it depends on how this was implemented; if done correctly, it should make it more difficult for criminals.
This is not a simple issue. and it's certainly not going to be solved here, but it's interesting to hear so many points of view.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 22 2007, 06:02 PM) [snapback]394832[/snapback]</div>

Sad but true. Democrats have a long history of attempting to ban firearms all together. Obama is no exception, his voting record clearly indicates this.

I like some Democrat ideals, they seem to be more compassionate, albeit, way too much (hence the "Think about the children, ban guns!" mentality).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Feb 22 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]394621[/snapback]</div>

That’s kinky.

:lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 04:22 PM) [snapback]394804[/snapback]</div>

You missed the point.......it's a question of degrees, or levels of potency, if you will.
A 500 horsepower car is more potent than your 110hp Prius.....some might say the 500hp car is "overkill";
"Why would you need a 500hp car?"; both cars transport folks around, like you noted, but do you want the government telling you that a 500hp car is "too much" or "the only thing a 500hp car is good for is breaking the law, so you can't have one"? I maintain that one of the great things about this country is our freedom of choice, although with those choices comes the responsibility of being accountable for what you do with those choices.
The manufacturers of assult rifles are building machines that reliably and accurately fire projectiles at targets....it is humans that make the choice to make targets out of other humans....not the manufacturing
of the machine. An assult rifle being more efficient at firing bullets is like the higher horsepower car.....you've got the potential to do more damage with both.

Although you may not be able to appreciate it, lots of people enjoy shooting various kinds of firearms, including assult rifles. They shoot at dirt piles, paper targets, bottles, cans. It may seem foreign to you, but they do it as a leisure activity. For them it's like golfing, or boating, or any other leisure activity.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 22 2007, 06:06 PM) [snapback]394834[/snapback]</div>

Sure thing buddy.

About my last statement, think about it like this.. The Federal Government demands all citizens turn in their firearms. If this happened, God help the Officers that are ordered to retreive these weapons, none-the-less, the people who turn them in will be, for the most part, law abiding citizens. Now, plenty.. lots.. lots of criminals have guns. They won't be turning in their un-registered guns, they'll be keeping them. On top of that, firearms can be smuggled across our borders with ease. This, to me, is a formula for danger. Law abiding citizens can't go buy them, but criminals can, from the back of a truck.

Just like alcohol prohibition, when it was made illegal, only criminals had it. Think about the black market racket that would rise from a ban of firearms for law abiding citizens. It would be catastrophic...

Just look at the crime rates of the cities where such unConstitutional atrocities have been committed.. DC had a 200% increase in violent crime/murder/rape after the gun ban. Bad guys have them, good guys dont. That isn't a good combination, at all.

Banning them will not eliminate them, it will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one.. The bad guys.. the thugs.. They'll have no problems finding them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 11:48 AM) [snapback]394712[/snapback]</div>

Oh boy do you need to go to the Rapture Thread! <_< Your missing a Smorgasbord of insults and name calling there. By whom you ask? Go see.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Feb 22 2007, 10:39 AM) [snapback]394663[/snapback]</div>

WHAT!!!! I do! Dang man what are we going to do with all those derlict Hummer's and SUV's in the junkyards?!? Can't shoot those babies up with a tiny little 9mm or .38 and don't even think of a .22. I say we fill them with gas and shoot them into little bitty pieces with full metal-jacket armor-piercing, exploding tracer rounds from government issued fully-automatic assault rifles and then recycle them. YEAH BABY!!! Man I envy those guys in Texas.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]394843[/snapback]</div>

Here ya go my friend,

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?old=tru...patform_id=69#7

He has outright stated that all sales of semiautomatic firearms should be stopped.

I've got more coming.. Give me some time to pull some other credible information..

 

Without wading too much into the gory details of this thread, I'd just like to point out that I am endlessly entertained by people saying that people that don't agree with them must "hate America."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Feb 22 2007, 02:26 PM) [snapback]394849[/snapback]</div>

Sorry. . .

Did you get my PM? I am having a real hard time signing on again.

Wildkow