Originally posted by intrepid

Well, I've been using firearms for over 30 years and I've got to go with the left wing lunatics on this one. Assault rifles for hunting? After the first round is discharged, your aim is off, give me a break. I don't think hand guns should be used for hunting either, not as accurate as a rifle, more humane. Did that sound like lunacy Grady?

Well, first of all, the Assault Weapons Ban did not ban Assault Weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1934 did that.

Yes. It does sound like lunacy. Most "assault weapons" are in the calibers .223, 7.62mm/39mm, 9mm. There are many firearms in those calibers which fire semi-automatic. The first two are very useful for hunting small to medium game under some circumstances and all are good for self-defense.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Even the military does not have a real definition of an assault weapon. Most definitions are something on the order of a small to medium caliber short rifle, with the capacity for selective fire. There are no selective fire weapons that are covered by the assault weapons ban. All automatic weapons are covered under the Gun Control Act of 1934.

The Assault Weapons ban is bad legislation because it does absolutely nothing, except ban certain external, non-fire-function related features. It is stupid legislation foisted on the ill informed and fearful by liars.


[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
.In hunting, there are no one shot one kill scenarios. One should always have another round handy or another hunter to insure a clean kill. The Assault weapons ban does not address automatic weapons. In fact, all the weapons are semi-automatic.
[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

I noticed you added this after my reply to you. Well Grady, if you are that poor of a shot, I would not care to be in the bush with you. You don't take the shot unless it's going to take the animal down.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, first of all, the Assault Weapons Ban did not ban Assault Weapons. The Gun Control Act of 1934 did that.

Yes. It does sound like lunacy. Most "assault weapons" are in the calibers .223, 7.62mm/39mm, 9mm. There are many firearms in those calibers which fire semi-automatic. The first two are very useful for hunting small to medium game under some circumstances and all are good for self-defense.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Even the military does not have a real definition of an assault weapon. Most definitions are something on the order of a small to medium caliber short rifle, with the capacity for selective fire. There are no selective fire weapons that are covered by the assault weapons ban. All automatic weapons are covered under the Gun Control Act of 1934.

The Assault Weapons ban is bad legislation because it does absolutely nothing, except ban certain external, non-fire-function related features. It is stupid legislation foisted on the ill informed and fearful by liars.


[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Hold it right there. We were talking about hunting, not your right wing propagandist lunacy. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be able to figure out which makes sense and which is tripe.

noticed you added this after my reply to you. Well Grady, if you are that poor of a shot, I would not care to be in the bush with you. You don't take the shot unless it's going to take the animal down.

Having the capacity for a quick second shot has nothing to do with marksmanship and everythng to do with humaneness. Hunting in pairs is just good safety common sense. You were talking about hunting game, not combat sniping.

Hold it right there. We were talking about hunting, not your right wing propagandist lunacy. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be able to figure out which makes sense and which is tripe.

I know we were talking about hunting. Rifles in the calibers .223 and 7.62 in either one single shot, bolt action, or semi-automatic are suitable for hunting. The presence of those features which the ban addressed have nothing to do with the action of the firearm. This is not right wing propaganda.

Those who know about firearms will recognize my posts as being truthful. Those who don't know about firearms will, like you, call me a lunatic.

It's not nice for moderators to bait members. There is a large and insurmountable power differential involved. We have names for behavior like this.

[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Hold it right there. We were talking about hunting, not your right wing propagandist lunacy. I'm sure that anyone reading this will be able to figure out which makes sense and which is tripe.

I know we were talking about hunting. Rifles in the calibers .223 and 7.62 in either one single shot, bolt action, or semi-automatic are suitable for hunting. The presence of those features which the ban addressed have nothing to do with the action of the firearm. This is not right wing propaganda.

Those who know about firearms will recognize my posts as being truthful. Those who don't know about firearms will, like you, call me a lunatic.

It's not nice for moderators to bait members. There is a large and insurmountable power differential involved. We have names for behavior like this.

[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Right! So, by neccesity, are all of vaguely associated with the left wing lunatics? Me, now I'm a centrist. I can go either way on some issues, but this particular subject seperates me from most liberals. We have tight gun control up here, which I do no approve of. It does not deter crime, and it even hinders the capacity for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. However, I do not see the neccesity for 'assault weapons' to be included. Sure, they CAN be used for home defence or hunting, but is it neccesarily a good idea? I haven't heard of anyone breaking into a house where an AR or SMG would be considered a more appropriate weapon for home defence over a 12 gauge. to put it simply, these are overkill weapons. I can understand possesing one if you are a member of the military or law enforcement, but beyond that I see little reason.

As for your comment about baiting, you sure are one to talk, Grady. You attack liberals like a rottweiller on crank, most of the time without provocation.


DE

Does anyone read my posts? I have said it over and over again. The idiots who wrote the Assault Weapons Law wouldn't know an assault weapon if it walked up and bit them on the patootie.

So in the absence of knowledge, they banned a group of semi-automatic weapons based on external features unrelated to function, which make them look like "assault weapons." It makes on sense to ban a semi-automatic weapon with a pistol grip and a bayonet lug when a semi-automatic without these features are legal.

An "assault weapon" must have the capacity for automatic fire, which none of the banned weapons possessed.

The Assault Weapons ban banned ugly, scary looking guns without concern for their function. It was a fatally flawed law designed to make cowards and the ill informed feel good.

I'm sorry, but that's the truth. Bad legislation, benefits no one and least of all Canadians.


[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by DeusEx

Right! So, by neccesity, are all of vaguely associated with the left wing lunatics? Me, now I'm a centrist. I can go either way on some issues, but this particular subject seperates me from most liberals. We have tight gun control up here, which I do no approve of. It does not deter crime, and it even hinders the capacity for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. However, I do not see the neccesity for 'assault weapons' to be included. Sure, they CAN be used for home defence or hunting, but is it neccesarily a good idea? I haven't heard of anyone breaking into a house where an AR or SMG would be considered a more appropriate weapon for home defence over a 12 gauge. to put it simply, these are overkill weapons. I can understand possesing one if you are a member of the military or law enforcement, but beyond that I see little reason.


DE

So you are against the type of round used rather then the function of the gun right? 12 gauge shotguns can be purchased in a semi-automatic versions. Some shotgun rounds can be more deadly then any so called "Assault weapon" rounds. Flechette,Exploder, steel AP,Rhodesian Jungle. rounds can be more deadly then long rifle rounds

Oh, I know exactly what the AWB got rid of- things which made killing slightly easier. None the less, I still do not support the possesion of assault rifles and submachineguns - even the semiautomatic variety - in the hands of citizenry. The concept of overkill remains the most obvious reason. Why would you need a semiauto SMG, anyways?

DE

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Those who know about firearms will recognize my posts as being truthful. Those who don't know about firearms will, like you, call me a lunatic.

It's not nice for moderators to bait members. There is a large and insurmountable power differential involved. We have names for behavior like this.

[edit on 04/9/13 by GradyPhilpott]

I think that it's quite evident that I know about firearms, that I would not use them as cavalierly as you does not lessen my abillity. I do not recall baiting you. I do recall addressing a post that meantioned my views as lunacy. Did you think that would go unchallenged? Yes I am a Mod but that is immaterial here. Do you see me threatening you, no. I'm addressing your posts and when you can't handle an opposing view you start crying foul. Bad form.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
So you are against the type of round used rather then the function of the gun right? 12 gauge shotguns can be purchased in a semi-automatic versions. Some shotgun rounds can be more deadly then any so called "Assault weapon" rounds. Flechette,Exploder, steel AP,Rhodesian Jungle. rounds can be more deadly then long rifle rounds

I am against both. There is no need for a private citizen to own augmented rounds, or military-grade ordinance. I support the right to bear arms, but really, since when are burglars wearing lv 3a body armor when they break into your house?

If they did, I could understand a person buying APDS rounds, flechettes, and other malicious rounds. "In defence of your home" doesn't mean "Kill the person. Kill him good."

It should also be noted that at ranges a shotgun would be used in self defence, it would almost certainly be more deadly than an AR round, even with humble buckshot. So why do you need dum dums and exploders?

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
Oh, I know exactly what the AWB got rid of- things which made killing slightly easier. None the less, I still do not support the possesion of assault rifles and submachineguns - even the semiautomatic variety - in the hands of citizenry. The concept of overkill remains the most obvious reason. Why would you need a semiauto SMG, anyways?

DE

You dont know much about the AWB then.

Rifles

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher

Yeah these thing really effect the killing power of a Gun Since you seem not to know alot about the AWB you might look at Grenade launcher and say thats makes killing easier but you would be wrong. Grenades are tightly regulated as destructive devices and the AWB does not effect that at all.

But those things make a gun look scary to people that dont know anything about guns. So I can understand why you would be confused

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Rifles

Specifically, a rifle is considered an "assault weapon" if it can accept a detachable magazine, and possesses two or more of the following features:

Folding or telescopic stock
Pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the stock
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor or threaded barrel
Grenade launcher

Yeah these thing really effect the killing power of a Gun Since you seem not to know alot about the AWB you might look at Grenade launcher and say thats makes killing easier but you would be wrong. Grenades are tightly regulated as destructive devices and the AWB does not effect that at all.

But those things make a gun look scary to people that dont know anything about guns. So I can understand why you would be confused

Now, see, that was outright underhanded. You twisted my words- but I'll clarify, just for you. It makes the act of killing easier for a proffesional or criminal. It makes it easier to commit, harder to detect. And really, is it hard to obtain 40mm grenades illegally? Probably not. Now, let's throw up some run of the mill questions:

Q. Why would you want a threaded barrel or flash suppressor?

A. to hide flash and make your fire arm use more subtle!

Q. Why?

A. Because it makes it easier to attach a silencer. These aren't hunting tools, or self defence tools. You look at that, and you say "The only reason he would have that is to hunt other people."

I find teh bayonet restriction slightly unreasonable, but then I remember that the US has pockets of militia space, some of which are well armed and provisioned.

So, what teh AWB was really getting at was tools of the trade- for hitmen and paramilitaries. Am I to assume you are overjoyed that these people can get their toys back legally? That you support them?

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx

So, what teh AWB was really getting at was tools of the trade- for hitmen and paramilitaries. Am I to assume you are overjoyed that these people can get their toys back legally? That you support them?

DE

Do you really think the AWB effected if Hitmen could get silencers? Criminals still get there hands on such things if there is a AWB or not. They had there "toys" if this ban was inplace or not.

Not like the AWB even effects the purchase of silencers

Also it is not easy to get a 40mm grenade illegaly. Try to fiind one case in the US where a 40mm grenade was used in a crime

[edit on 13-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Do you really think the AWB effected if Hitmen could get silencers? Criminals still get there hands on such things if there is a AWB or not. They had there "toys" if this ban was inplace or not.

Not like the AWB even effects the purchase of silencers

Also it is not easy to get a 40mm grenade illegaly. Try to fiind one case in the US where a 40mm grenade was used in a crime

[edit on 13-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

No, they could sitll get silencers. But it made it harder for them to attach said silencers to things. Kinda hard without a threaded barrel....

And as to your 40mm grenade question, I don't suppose you've been through militia country, have you? No one's going to use it in a crime, except for possesion. But when they do, you'll hear about it. you're confusing the issue- the white-supremacist-uber-christian paramilitaries have the nades, and the criminals have the silencers.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Do you really think the AWB effected if Hitmen could get silencers? Criminals still get there hands on such things if there is a AWB or not. They had there "toys" if this ban was inplace or not.

Not like the AWB even effects the purchase of silencers

Also it is not easy to get a 40mm grenade illegaly. Try to fiind one case in the US where a 40mm grenade was used in a crime

[edit on 13-9-2004 by ShadowXIX]

No, they could sitll get silencers. But it made it harder for them to attach said silencers to things. Kinda hard without a threaded barrel....

And as to your 40mm grenade question, I don't suppose you've been through militia country, have you? No one's going to use it in a crime, except for possesion. But when they do, you'll hear about it. you're confusing the issue- the white-supremacist-uber-christian paramilitaries have the nades, and the criminals have the silencers.

DE

So then you think the AWB stopped a hitmen that could get a silencer but because of the AWB he could not get a threaded barrel Thats does not stop anyone.

Im still waiting for a case of a 40mm grenade used in a crime cant find one can you. Because they dont happen.

The Hitman weapon of choice is a .22 silenced handgun not a assault rifle. I could make a silencer in 10 minutes with stuff found around the house it stops nobody and I wouldnt even need a threaded barrel.

yeah, I know. .22 wheelgun for real hitmen, can't be silenced, etc.

Oh, and thsoe 40mm grenades are with your law abdiding citizens in that gigantic compound down teh street, the ones with gun emplacements surrounded by the ATF.

It should also be noted that I can make a fair sized bomb for 30$ or less, and boobytrap a house for 150$. Not hard to do anything destructive, and your potato silencer is both messy and heavy on the evidence. All I'm saying si that generally, peopl with lawful propensities don't need tools of the hitman's trade.

DE

Originally posted by DeusEx
yeah, I know. .22 wheelgun for real hitmen, can't be silenced, etc.

Oh, and thsoe 40mm grenades are with your law abdiding citizens in that gigantic compound down teh street, the ones with gun emplacements surrounded by the ATF.

It should also be noted that I can make a fair sized bomb for 30$ or less, and boobytrap a house for 150$. Not hard to do anything destructive, and your potato silencer is both messy and heavy on the evidence. All I'm saying si that generally, peopl with lawful propensities don't need tools of the hitman's trade.

DE

Please a potato silencer is for kids and was not what I was talking about.

I dont remeber any 40mm grenades use at Waco or any battle with law enforcement. Sure you could say it might happen But aliens might attack earth too It does not mean its going to happen.

The only feature that can even be argued as a hitman tool in the list that makes a rifle a ''assualt weapon'' is the threaded barrel. A threaded barrel could also be used for other things besides a silencer. It could be used to put on different types of muzzle brakes which are important to target shooters. I cant because my muzzle brakes are welded on the the barrel of my gun I can't switch other models out and try them out without alot of work.

Since you live in Canada you dont have to worry about any law abiding citizen getting his hands on any of this stuff.

What makes an AR-15 a tool of the "hit mans trade"?
It's a small caliber semiauto rifle. You can't exactly tuck it in your pants and covertly "whack" someone with it.

Why should I not be allowed to own a perfectly legitimate target rifle because someone, somewhere might use it for illegal purposes?
I already had my background and fingerprints checked by the FBI, State police and department of public safety. What more do you want?
I obviously don't intend to hurt anyone if I don't absolutely positively have to.
Some of the earlier posters were right, It IS a lot of fun when you can open up on a bunch of watermelons ect. in a safe place with a 30 round semi-auto rifle .
Shooting a human being is a completely different story. It's a situation that I hope I never face but am prepared to as a LAST resort. I'll run away first if I can (call me a wimp if you like). Sometimes you just don't have the option of retreat and for that rare case I'll continue to carry a gun, not an "assault weapon", but far more deadly than you people seem to recognize.
You should really be focusing on 9mm handguns! I would be willing to bet that they are used in more than 50% of gun crimes. You might actually make a law that works and those of us with 9mm guns will start using 8.999999999mm ammunition and we can continue to play these stupid games while allowing murderers to walk free after ten years.
GREAT PLAN!!!
Yes, I know of a man, locally, who killed a person(without just cause) with a standard single shot 12GA shotgun and just got out of prison after serving only ten years.
Violent rapists are being released in two years or sometimes less.
Maybe it's just me but I think if we REALLY enforced the laws that we have on those that break them we might actually acheive better results. Why worry about us that shoot targets or hunt or just have guns to protect our families? It seems counterproductive to me...

Just curious...
Would you folks who say you are pro-Second Amendment but anti-"Assault Weapons" be OK with people owning "assault weapons" if there were licensing and tough background checks like in many states for handgun permits?



[edit on 13-9-2004 by Fry2]

They are legal as well. Nearly as heavily regulated by the BATF. You need to pay a manufacturing tax of $600.00 last time I looked as well as fill out the forms explaining why you need/want one. It is considered a firearm in and of itself as well!!! Something to keep in mind...
I would love to have one for my handgun for teaching shooting to my family and friends at my summer place in the mountains but I do and will continue to abide by the law(even though this one bugs me) and not own one until such time.
Any of you who have gone shooting without "ears" knows what I'm talking about

Since when has the second amendment stated that we can bear arms "for hunting"? Can you honestly tell me that if someone broke into your house with the intent of harming you or your familiy that you would shoot to hurt?

As for a not being able to buy a threaded barrel, the AWB did not restrict anyone's ability to buy those. It made it a felony to assemble it into a weapon if the reciever being used was produced after the ban. You could buy pre-ban (threaded, bayo lug) uppers and barrels directly off of Bushmaster's website while the ban was in effect. And someone who has a class three firearm or device (silencer) without any BATF registration will probably not hesitate to assemble the weapon, especially if it is their intent to commit murder.

As for why would I want a threaded barrel, have you ever shot military loads out of a rifle without a flash suppressor? Even the XM193 that I shoot is loaded much hotter than most civilian rounds. The flash is visible to the shooter even during daylight and can become distracting.