An honest question on assault rifles.

Taichiliberal said:
So you "need" an assault weapon because people disagree with you? How fascist of you. But seriously, I have no criminal record, do not advocate mindless anarchy. And since there is a plethora of weapons available that are just as good (if not better, according to numerous gun enthusiasts) for home protection, Why do you need that particular weapon?
Click to expand...
Why do you need a computer? Or a magazine or newspaper subscription? Shouldn't the government be able to restrict your right to information?
 
rjhenn said:
More ignorance on display. You have to get a special license from the BATF and pay some hefty taxes, but you can own a fully automatic rifle. That's been true since the '30s. And bump stocks are legal and unregulated because of how the law defines an automatic weapon. Since a bump stock only allows you to pull the trigger really fast, you're not firing multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger, which is what's required by the legal definition of automatic weapon. Won't do much good to ban them anyway. Anyone with a 3D printer can make one.
Click to expand...

Please provide valid proof as to what exactly is this "special license" that a CIVILIAN can purchase/acquire to get a fully automatic weapon. in the meantime, please note that the law states that anyone owning a full automatic https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

As to your take on the 3d printer thing on bump stocks....if bump stocks are made illegal, selling/distributing those specs on the net will be illegal, as will be the software for it.

Now, quit stalling and answer the OP question.
 
Taichiliberal said:
A demonstrated numerous times, a LOT of right wing or just intense gun enthusiasts of any political persuasion feel their particular myopic or revisionist interpretation supersede all else.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's those judges who have the "myopic or revisionist interpretation"s.
 
rjhenn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So it's a better, more effective killing machine...given it's ammo capacity and higher impact ammo used?
Click to expand...


"higher impact ammo" appears to be another bit of ignorance. The 5.56 NATO round is a medium power round. The military adopted it because it was lower recoil, thus easier for a soldier to control when firing full-auto. It is also less lethal than the 7.62 NATO round that was the previous standard, the theory there being that the enemy would have to divert resources into caring for their wounded. And, in many states, it's legally not powerful enough to use to hunt deer.
Click to expand...

You're quick to call people ignorant, yet you keep making fatal errors in your assertions. A great selling point about the AR-15 is its versatility on many levels, such as

https://www.ammoforsale.com/ammo-ar15

so much for your lame attempt to downplay the assault aspect of this weapon. So, care to answer the OP?
 
Taichiliberal said:
As to this oft repeated mantra by NRA flunkies and extreme gun enthusiasts.....when you take a particular weapon off the general retail market, that also greatly reduces the availability of said weapon to the criminal element on the "black market". They have to scrounge around to find those who have the weapon pre-ban and either steal it or buy it (no questions asked). The black market value for that weapon increases greatly, making it a rare sale and thus making it unprofitable for the criminal seller to obtain.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we've seen how well that logic works with drugs.
 
rjhenn said:
Well, at least you realise that you're just "some bigot blowing smoke".
Click to expand...

Try following the chronology of the posts, stupid. This little exchange was based on the poster "Body Double". If you're too damned lazy or intellectually dishonest to click back, then just STFU and stop making a fool of yourself.
 
rjhenn said:
Look at the articles that one of your buddies posted about the history of mass shootings. Rifles, of all sorts, were used only about 25% of the time.
Click to expand...

I accept your concession. You are unable to cite one actual “could have”.

Dismissed.
 
rjhenn said:
The AWB was more ignorance and paranoia. Your own source indicates that it did nothing to interrupt the supply of so-called "assault weapons".
Click to expand...

Thanks to loop holes and retailer/manufacturer slight of hand to get around the law. Remember, jokers like you rallied to prevent a full out ban....and then there are the dumbasses who owned such pre-ban and didn't give a damn who they sold them to.

Now, care to answer the OP?
 
rjhenn said:
You, of course, are reading things into that that aren't there. You should try and get more familiar with the actual history behind the 2nd amendment.
"the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
Click to expand...

You should get more familiar with the 2nd. Madison originally worded it with a conscientious objector clause.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Let me dumb it down for you:

1. She gave no answer to the op as to why SHE NEEDS that particular weapon.
Click to expand...
Well, you don't NEED a computer, do you? It just exposes you to identity theft and fraud, so possession needs to be strictly regulated.

2. Her childish description of "liberals'" does not answer the OP.
Click to expand...
Actually, it sounded pretty accurate. You aren't responding rationally, just running around like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off.
3. Her referral to the recent case here in NYC is moronic...video of that case show a mentally disturbed man running up to people and pointing a metal tube their head quickly, making a threat and then running away. Not enough time to determine if it was a gun or pipe or garden hose handle. Out of all the 911 calls made, 9/10 said they weren't sure if it was a gun or not....the dispatch just issues a "man with a gun" scenario to the cops. A tragedy, but the cops were justified (IMHO) in their reaction. (fatal shooting).
Click to expand...
Your description doesn't sound anything like what she described.
 
rjhenn said:
Where's there any proof? Isn't that just the conjecture that you object to?
Click to expand...

I'm basing that on this little tidbit the poster provided "I like my GI spec. 1911 as well. " Since all you gunners love to provide your "expertise" on various weapons, I gambled he was telling the truth as he saw fit.

Now, can YOU answer the OP?
 
rjhenn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
My, but you dance well in your own bullshit. Where did I say that I didn't believe in the 2nd Amendment? And since by LAW you can't have weapons that select to fully automatic, your comparison to the the AR15 is interesting, given that you gunners swear up and down that it's NOT a military style weapon. But as usual, historical facts make a fool of you https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...03#post2311903
Click to expand...

It is a military style weapon. That basically just means that it looks like an M-16. It does not function like an M-16. Up until NFA '34 anyone could own an automatic weapon. It was the illegal use of them by Prohibition-era criminals that led to their restriction. Yet another unintended consequence of government stupidity, just as with the War on Drugs.
Click to expand...

the original design was for the military, genius. It didn't sell well, and then they produced the version we have today.....it's still an assault weapon....as designed, as originally marketed, whether you like it or not. The rest of your moot point, pure opinion and hole filled history lesson non-withstanding.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You need to read carefully and comprehensively....36 years of such shootings in situations that do not jibe with your generalizations. Also, your blanket statement of "gun free zones" is misleading at best, as you cannot prove such for the various shootings described over the years.
Click to expand...
Exactly, "36 years". If guns are the problem, then why weren't mass shootings common before that, when there were few, if any, restrictions on guns or who could purchase them. Even children could lagally buy guns. Gun free zones were virtually unknown back then. The increase in mass shootings correlates with increasing restrictions. Obviously, something besides guns is responsible, but no one is at all interested in figuring out what.
 
Last edited:
rjhenn said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
No, it's about the almighty dollar and the gun manufacturers making money off of a model that they initially couldn't sell very well to the military. It's about feeding off the paranoia of the average citizen. When you talk about "parity" you should remember that the NRA propaganda just 20 years ago was swearing that ANY gun control was a slippery slope to total gun confiscation and ban to the civilian population. By that take, you state that weapons of ANY caliber are a threat of resistance to the potential totalitarian/fascist/communist state. Any soldier worth his weight will tell you that they would rather NOT face a population armed with hunting rifles, rifles, handguns and shotguns of various caliber.

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

Well we know that the NRA blather NEVER had a chance of happening and was NEVER part of any proposal. The AWB of 1994 was an attempt to keep para-military weapons out of the general population and thus subsequently off the black market and out of the hands of potential nut jobs and terrorists.
Click to expand...
As usual, a little bit of truth and a lot of blather. The paranoia belongs to the gun control fanatics. The National Guard is not "the militia". That's according to federal law. The National Guard is "the organized militia". The rest of us are "the unorganized militia". The AWB was a half-assed attempt to ban firearms that some found particularly scary. GCA'68 was an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of "potential nut jobs and terrorists". It was a failure, too. Gun control in this country started as an attempt to restrict blacks and has progressed to restricting everybody, with attempts made to ban certain classes of firearms. It looks like the NRA's "slippery slope" argument is coming true. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring what your 'side' is saying. The AR-15 is not a "military grade" weapon. That's just more of your ignorance and paranoia. And the gun manufacturers never tried to sell the AR-15 to the military. Yhat was the M-16, which the AR is a civilian copy of.
Click to expand...


For your education: http://www.nationalguard.mil/About-the-Guard/How-We-Began/

And the rest of your screed has been answered throughout this thread. One thing is for certain, you were projecting with your first sentence. No one gives a damn about your NRA laden opinion, as you clearly cannot provide bullet proof facts to support it. Just grow a pair and answer the OP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top