Wal-Mart to Stop Selling AR-15s and Similar Weapons

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for linking that genius. Read what it says carefully:

An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed and held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

Do you have to just pull the trigger again? That's it? You don;t have to pull a cock down or any thing? Must be a vast difference. /sarc

a reply to: reldra

Son of a ....

I saw this today and went to the closest Walmart that sold rifles and they had just sold the last one at 65% off !!!!!!

I missed it!



BTW, just FYI

Less than 2 percent of gun crimes involve "so called" assault weapons.


assets.opencrs.com...
www.nytimes.com...

AR style rifles are used all the time for home defense BTW:

a reply to: reldra

do you own a fire extinguisher?

Does anyone?

I'd say. . . . . why?

The fire department is paid to take care of fires, why would anyone need a fire extinguisher?

originally posted by: reldra
Do you have to just pull the trigger again? That's it? You don;t have to pull a cock down or any thing? Must be a vast difference. /sarc

No, Reldra, no cocks get pulled or anything.

And frankly you were the one who ignorantly threw automatic weapons into the discussion. Once again, if you are going to post a topic, learn something about it first.

If you think there is no difference why not quickly price out an automatic rifle versus a semi-automatic and get back to us.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: reldra

do you own a fire extinguisher?

Does anyone?

I'd say. . . . . why?

The fire department is paid to take care of fires, why would anyone need a fire extinguisher?

That is just silly.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: reldra

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What's to interpret?

A lot, actually. The 2nd amendment leaves too much to interpretation and it has allowed for regulations to be placed on firearms beyond what I find reasonable. It does need to be amended.

That being said, it is the premise of the 2nd that must be upheld as it is the only thing that we have that keeps us from outright tyranny.

Although both "semi automatic" and "fully automatic" weapons are "automatic" in the technical sense that the firearm automatically cycles between rounds with each trigger pull, the terms "automatic weapon" and "automatic firearm" are conventionally reserved by firearm enthusiasts to describe fully automatic firearms. Use of this convention can avoid confusion.[1] For the mechanisms by which both fully- and semi-automatic weapons cycle, see firearm actions.

In fact the article asks us to use it in the wrong way so that it won't confuse people like you.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Thanks for linking that genius. Read what it says carefully:

An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed and held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

Do you have to just pull the trigger again? That's it? You don;t have to pull a cock down or any thing? Must be a vast difference. /sarc

In double-action (DA), the stroke of the trigger pull generates three actions:

The hammer is pulled back to the cocked position.
At the same time, the cylinder is indexed to the next round.
The hammer is released to strike the firing pin.

Wal*Mart's business decision to stop selling guns that take up shelf space is now on page 6 of a thread, possibly seven by the time I finish typing this.

I read a few posts at the tail end and see this really isn't about Wal*Mart and their decision but about the usual go-around on ats of firearm issues.

a reply to: reldra

Actually you are silly by stating cocks are being pulled down. I am sure there are more appropriate websights if that is your thing. Now, I am picking on you as I get what you are trying to say. No hard feelings.

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Sunwolf

So what? Are the people on this forum infallible?

On firearms most are.You are just wrong and don`t want to admit it.

a reply to: introvert

You realize if it ever gets "amended" that you can kiss your guns goodbye right?

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

In fact the article asks us to use it in the wrong way so that it won't confuse people like you.

If someone handed you a weapon and said 'it's an automatic' what would you think its firing capabilities were without any further data?

a reply to: Sunwolf

Okay.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

You realize if it ever gets "amended" that you can kiss your guns goodbye right?

Not if if we do it right, but I am not blind to that possibility. There should be a very specific set of regulations put on the 2nd amendment, but it should be done in a way that no longer allows states to further define our rights.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TsukiLunar

In fact the article asks us to use it in the wrong way so that it won't confuse people like you.

If someone handed you a weapon and said 'it's an automatic' what would you think its firing capabilities were without any further data?

Say hello to my little friend ?????

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know, I have two from DPMS. Do they call it an Armalite?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't argue semantics, sorry. All I can say is that is what Wikipedia says and it sounds reasonable to me.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

You realize if it ever gets "amended" that you can kiss your guns goodbye right?

Not if if we do it right, but I am not blind to that possibility. There should be a very specific set of regulations put on the 2nd amendment, but it should be done in a way that no longer allows states to further define our rights.

Why stop at the second?