Hypothetically speaking, if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?, page 4

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike

I get so tired of the "military grade" response to the fact that there is no such classification as "assualt weapon". The term "miltary grade" was the first "assault weapon". Seeing as there is no true definition of "miltary grade" the gov defined as destructive devices (bombs, grenades), machine guns, SBR's, silencers (although silencers are far more practical in sporting/hunting situations than military).

No all of a sudden, semi-autos dressed up to look like their big brothers are military grade? Why doesn't our miltary use them then? Well they look alike, so they must be right?

OP, you want an answer to actually give you a reason for keeping semi-autos or one that supports your position? Truth is you know nothing about guns if you think semi-auto is only designed for military apps or "killing". Heck even a sling-shot is designed for killing, doesn't make it "military grade". And, the Ruger 10/22 semi-auto rifle in circ, yet I fail to see the "military grade" to that weapon. And, I challenge to live amongst wolves/coyotes/foxes/wildpig/angry javalina/etc and defend against them with a single shot rifle.

These rifles should not be banned because not infringed means just that. Without a constitutional convention to amend . . . our right can not be legislated against. Now you can make the point that the gov has already outlawed certain arms, so we have seemed to have already given up this right. You would be right and that is why we should fight to preserve what is left.

Everybody keeps pointing to England as a model, yet they don't even have a right to free speech. They have a culture of servitude, IHMS. Not the country I want the US to emulate on the rights of their citizens.

Woh woh, hold on now.. I know little about the mechanics and classification of firearms, but you are blurring the lines by inferring a semi-auto is any less dangerous than a fully auto.

The point is to stop one man from gunning down crowds of people, why do YOU as a private citizen need that right to stop crowds?

I am not on any sides but you and people like you make it very hard to not pick sides out of passion, not attacking you but i would appreciate if you dropped the condescending way of making your point.

edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)