Congress Pushes Anti-gun Brady Law Expansion Bill

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I realize that. Assault weapons are unique from regular semi-auto rifles in their design. They are designed for fighting and shooting at other people. Sure these same features can carry over to shooting rabbits and beer cans, but their design was ultimately for combat. That is why the military chooses one of them over another rifle of the same caliber.

Personally I think if someone wants to own one of these weapons, they should join the military. They even let you legally shoot at other people with them. I hear it is quite exciting.

The weapons banned have nothing to do with hunting people. Many of the weapons banned are just trivial. If we're going to have laws on the books to ban guns for civilian safety we should ban the weapons that are the most threat.. no? And not base it purely on faux psychological reasons.

[7960]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I agree. We could start posting pictures of illegal vs legal weapons and all get a very good kick out of it. Some banned weapons are a joke. Some legal weapons are well above generic military weaponry.

The M16 is a weak weapon. The AR15 (legal M16 counterpart) is banned from hunting deer in many states. Not because it's "made for combat", but because it's too weak of a weapon. Many times it won't kill the deer or kill the deer fast enough, it's considered inhumane to hunt deer with an M16!!! You actually need to purchase a more powerful weapon just to go hunting!

"Designed for combat" but can't kill a deer at 200 yards

It'd be nice if the anti-gun people knew WTF they were talking about. "Designed for combat" means it's fully auto, 3 round burst, or single-shot capable. It means it takes a 5.56 round. It means it's light and easy to field strip to fix and/or replace parts. It has NOTHING to do with stopping power. But anti-gun people want it banned because "who needs an M16?" I guess they're right... no criminal needs an M16 when there are more powerful guns in walmart right now.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 7960

I guess they're right... no criminal needs an M16 when there are more powerful guns in walmart right now.

For A LOT less money too! M16s go for $6k-15k dollars. You can get a far superior weapon for killing people at Walmart for a fraction of that cost. In fact if you gave me $10k to buy a weapon to go kill people an M16 would be on the bottom of my list. For a few hundred dollars you can get a far superior semi-automatic rifle from Walmart.

The nice thing about assault rifles though (which is why my grandfather liked them) is that they often have a spring in the stock. That helps recoil and when you're old your shoulders can start to bother you from firing some weapons at the range.

[JaJae]

This weapon is legal:


And can be had for under $2k

Yet our government is banning this:

When you figure it out, let me know...

[JSmythe]

FUck spending all that money. Buy a semi-auto AK74 for like $600!

[DosEquis]

The SA58 should be just as illegal as the M16. I have said before that stopping power is not the issue, and I am fully aware (and have said) there are more powerful and accurate rifles being manufactured. If it is unreasonable to hunt with these weapons but the military still chooses them, I think it kind of illustrates my point. Something like the AK47 or a SA58 with 20-30-45 round magazines, and can be converted so easily to "military mode" is just not needed for anything other than shooting people.


You guys will love this one though...

I have a russian sks with 2 30 round clips, bi-pod, bayonet, and folding stock in the closet

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by JSmythe

FUck spending all that money. Buy a semi-auto AK74 for like $600!

Shit man you can get a chinese AK for like 400 here in nebraska with a lot of the fixins.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I realize that. Assault weapons are unique from regular semi-auto rifles in their design.

yah its is called selective fire.

Personally I think if someone wants to own one of these weapons, they should join the military. They even let you legally shoot at other people with them. I hear it is quite exciting.

Make up your mind. Are you banning assault rifles or semi-auto weapons that look like assault rifles.

Sure these same features can carry over to shooting rabbits and beer cans, but their design was ultimately for combat. That is why the military chooses one of them over another rifle of the same caliber

The M16, M1 Garand, M1903, all the way back to the Blunderbust were all designed for combat. Are you going to regulate them equally ? Selective fire, semi-auto fire, bolt action, muzzle loaders are now all assault rifles

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

If it is unreasonable to hunt with these weapons but the military still chooses them, I think it kind of illustrates my point.

No, it doesn't. Please tell me in detail what point it illustrates.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

No, it doesn't. Please tell me in detail what point it illustrates.

Duh, he wants to ban weapons that arent powerful enough to kill regularly. But they are scary looking.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Duh, he wants to ban weapons that arent powerful enough to kill regularly. But they are scary looking.

I've asked a few times and he won't or can't answer, but I believe he's saying the military chooses it so it must be more deadly or it is more deadly so the military chooses it.

That's pretty retarded.

The military needed a lightweight fully auto / burst capable gun that took a 5.56 round and was easy to take apart and put back together in the field. Take away the fully auto / burst capable part (which is taken away in the civilian model) and there are hundreds of guns that are more deadly, more accurate, etc than an M16.

So I really don't understand his point.......... but he wont' elaborate so all I can do is guess.......... and the guess I'm guessing is pretty retarded.

[Diamond Cross]

Those who think that any firearm, regardless of its origin should go screw themselves. First of all, any form of law on controlling any form of firearm, including the heavy tri-pod mounted ones, is an infringement, and the constitution says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". None of the arguments on why matter, it is an infringement.

It's like saying people have the right to free speech, but only free speech that I approve of.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It's like saying people have the right to free speech, but only free speech that I approve of.

I can't scream fire in a crowded public place. I can't send the president a letter telling him how i would kill him. I can't lure a 6 year old into my van with promises of candy.


My free speech has been infringed.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Those who think that any firearm, regardless of its origin should go screw themselves.

Those who post should re-read before hitting "submit reply."

First of all, any form of law on controlling any form of firearm, including the heavy tri-pod mounted ones, is an infringement, and the constitution says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". None of the arguments on why matter, it is an infringement.

Just to get this clear, the constitution says you have the right to own these three guns?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I can't scream fire in a crowded public place. I can't send the president a letter telling him how i would kill him. I can't lure a 6 year old into my van with promises of candy.


My free speech has been infringed.

All of those instances infringe on someone's else's rights. Someone owning a legally registered firearm affects you or the public in no way.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

All of those instances infringe on someone's else's rights. Someone owning a legally registered firearm affects you or the public in no way.

That is the root of it. The British were confiscating arms of people on their own private property! It has nothing to do with playing Wild West on a public street.



"The months leading up to April 19, 1775 were extremely exciting times in Massachusetts. The British authorities, which were the ruling government of that day in the colonies, had already done some "gun confiscation" in the city of Boston. British General Thomas Gage, whose headquarters was in Boston, began receiving reports that patriotic colonials were storing firearms and gunpowder in the area between Boston and Concord, Massachusetts. General Gage had also received reports that the patriots had 14 cannons in the town of Concord.

General Gage now made the decision to move his "gun confiscation" efforts beyond the city limits of Boston out into the surrounding countryside. General Gage made plans to send crack British army troops to confiscate the cannons stored in the town of Concord, and to also confiscate any gunpowder and musket balls that they might find along the way."


The Revolutionary War

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 7960

Those who post should re-read before hitting "submit reply."

Just to get this clear, the constitution says you have the right to own these three guns?

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/im...ip-Posters.jpg

Personally, YES.
Constutition is talking about firearms though. Not artillery.


fyi. You can own modern artillery with a federal permit. And you can own black powder artillery without a permit.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

All of those instances infringe on someone's else's rights. Someone owning a legally registered firearm affects you or the public in no way.

huh?

Please name any rights those things violate.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

huh?

Please name any rights those things violate.

Threatening my life is not a violation ?