when he finally learns that semi autos are no less "deadly" than full autos he will want to ban them too and I bet if he sees this-revolvers are going to be on his ban list [video=youtube;WzHG-ibZaKM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM[/video]
1) to break contact 2) to suppress movement tell us -based on your obvious expertise as a tactical firearms expert as I am-what makes a full auto so "deadly" that you don't trust civilians to own them even though civilian PDs have lots of them
As we have seen multiple times, so can a semi-automatic firearm. So can a motor vehicle. So can an improvised explosive device. So can a combination of bleach and ammonia. So can many countless everyday implements if they are used for that purpose. Specifically where does society draw the line? In the nation of France, terrorists brought their own weapons into the country to murder artists of the Charlie Hebdo magazine in response to their drawings of Mohammed. What is stopping them from doing the same here?
if semi-auto firearms are just as dangerous as full-auto, why was full-auto invented? - - - Updated - - - civilians run away from crime, cops run towards it. that's why.
that's really stupid. cops normally choose WHEN they confront a violent criminal other civilians do not try again tell us about the tactical use of full automatic fire in a 20-30 round rifle vs semi auto you are still continuing to demonstrate that you know nothing about this subject and instead have watched too much RAMBO and thus were receptive to the idiocy Josh Sugarmann spewed (telling the press to confuse an ignorant public about Semi-auto and full auto)
it is the job of cops to confront a dangerous criminal if they encounter one, even if it puts his life in serious jeapordy. that's why we give them high-powered rifles. they also have gone through extensive training and a psych exam.
another stupendous fail real assault rifles are not "high powered rifles" since they fire an intermediate cartridge. and I can outshoot 99% of the cops in the USA. My son routinely destroys cops in fast paced speed shooting events. last year, the OHIO POLICE OLYMPICS were in the greater Cincinnati area (I was eligible as a retired DOJ attorney but I didn't feel a need to embarrass a bunch of guys half my age since I am a professional level shooter). Well at the club where all the pistol events were held, we had our monthly "steel shoot" and since it was held between the two big police events, most of the cops in the POs participated. Lots of SWAT types,etc. well my then 16 year old son steps up with his Glock 34 and one cop says to the RSO "hey can that kid shoot" and the RSO said-he's gonna crush all of you and the only one who has a chance of beating him is his father. He was right. we took one/two and my son was several seconds faster than the fastest cop
My dad gave me a .410 for my 12th birthday. It wasn't unusual for three or four of us kids to go back out to the wood and hunt squirrel and rabbit. Bagged my first deer at 14 using a Savage.
From where does "society" get rights? It's just a word, a conceptual label for an aggregate of individuals who may have some demographics in commons. And, by society, I think you mean "state", since society doesn't make rules or do anything at all.
Criminals could fairly easy get their hands on automatics, and in some cases have, but the reason they are not popular is for the simple reason that most criminals do not really need them.
what about random drug tests? No? Go figure............... they have high-powered rifles so they can pick off as many indigents from a safe distance as they can. Oh, and so they can shoot targets like these: Cops never entire a building where there's been a shooting until after the smokes clears. They are not here to protect us from anyone, much less them most pigs lie, anyway...how about the cops that laughed about shooting a woman in the head at a rally? or how they didn't go into SandyHook until they were sure Lanza was dead. bah, false authority AND liars. - - - Updated - - - no , sir, he meant HIS society will dictate who gets what...that's what authoritarians live for, dictating
And who is confronted by dangerous criminals in the time it takes for police officers to arrive? They do not. As we have seen in the following months, that is blatantly incorrect. Police officers do not pass psychiatric examinations before being allowed onto the force. Anyone who feels the need to arrest members of the public for disrespecting them, or repeatedly kick a suspect in the head while they are being held on the ground, or slam a pregnant woman down on her stomach to induce a miscarriage, has neither passed, nor even been subjected to a psychiatric examination.
semi autos have an extra part! you are right. Ronstar doesn't know much about firearms as indicated by his comments. when your main motivation is dislike of the politics you perceive gun owners to have, your factual understanding of guns really doesn't matter much to you
No. This is incorrect. First, cops are civilians. Saying otherwise alludes to how little you know about the subject. We have a civilian government, that organizes and pays a civilian police force to police other fellow citizens. Second, I assume you are referring to gun fire in your post (if not, sorry). Prepared and trained citizens run towards gun fire, untrained and I'll equipped run away from it. I won't run away from a mass shooting incident when I have the knowledge, skills, ability, and equipment to stop it. You may be different. People often ask me what I would do in a mass shootingnincident. It is the same thing Marines do during an ambush. Identify the enemy, close with the enemy, destroy the enemy. The tools you use between the beginning if the OODA loop and the conclusion of the incident is entirely up your your knowledge, skills, and abilities. Nothing more, nothing less. OODA loop: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/09/15/ooda-loop/
the Oxford dictionary and Merriam-Webster, disagree civilian: A person not in the armed services or the police force.
I will one up your copy paste and do one of my own. The GPO is the government printing office. They distrubute things like manuals, papers, and documents within the government. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title10/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap18 CHAPTER 18 - MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES (sections 371 - 382) Sec. 380 - Enhancement of cooperation with civilian law enforcement officials
that is a definition based on colloquial cop talk. the legal definition of a civilian is someone not in the military. I was a DOJ attorney. My ultimate boss was the AG. THE AG is the top law enforcement official in the USA. HE is a CIVILIAN government employee. The US Attorney for a judicial district is the highest ranking federal law enforcement officer in that district. He is a civilian employee. The Office of Personnel Management notes FBI special agents, Deputy US Marshals etc are CIVILIAN employees so your colloquial definition is not legally relevant. and that M-W definition also includes firefighters as "non-civilians" so as usual, your assertions are contrary to fact
He cited the Webster dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian Full Definition of CIVILIAN 1 a specialist in Roman or modern civil law 2 one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
Black's Law Dictionary, the choice most commonly used by judges, lawyers, and people writing and reading laws. http://thelawdictionary.org/civilian/ What is CIVILIAN? One who is skilled or versed in the civil law. A doctor, professor, or student of the civil law. Also a private citizen, as distinguished from such as belong to the army and navy or (in England) the church.
Society does have this power. We just need one more justice on the supreme court who doesn't base their rulings on facebook memes containing fake quotes.
