The problem i have with this gun control 'fad' is that it centers on the re-ban of assault weapons. Except for no one can define what an assault weapon is. The majority of people when they hear that term think of a fully automatic machine gun. However that is not that case, an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic weapon; meaning you (*)(*)(*)(*) the gun once and then every time you pull the trigger it fires a SINGLE bullet. So then whats the difference between the AR-15 and a ranch rifle or the double action revolver or most other popular guns? Operationally there is no difference. The mechanics in all of those guns work the same way. The difference between them is cosmetic. The AR-15, and other "assault weapons" are defined by what features they harbor, such as a collapsible stock, a bayonet attachment, a flash suppressor, a pistol grip, or a grenade launcher. Non of those features affect the mechanics of the gun and make it more dangerous. So why ban that when really its no more dangerous than most handguns.
I have the same problem. Obama, Biden & Fienstein wants everyone to believe that the civilian assault style weapons are just like the military M16. The other difference is 45-60 rds a minute(cilvilian) and up to 1000 rds a minute(military) From full article below Entitled “Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies,” the NIJ paper points out that background checks and gun bans such as those proposed by the president have proven not to be effective in reducing violent crime. It also states: On average there are about 11,000 firearm homicides every year.... Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings. Before proceeding, we must pause for a fact check and correction. NIJ’s Dr. Ridgeway’s citation of “11,000 firearm homicides” annually in the United States is a false factoid that has worked its way through the media to such an extent that it is commonly believed to be true — but it is not. CNN’s Piers Morgan has been citing this supposed “fact” nightly for weeks. Cincinnati television reporter Ben Swann does a good job of breaking down and refuting this and other related statistical sleight-of-hand tricks in the gun debate on his “Reality Check” (see here). As Swann points out, using official FBI sources, in 2011 there were not 11,000 firearm homicides, but 8,583. And of that number, 400 were justifiable homicides by law-enforcement officers. Another 260 were justifiable homicides by private citizens (shooting robbers, rapists, burglars in self-defense). So the actual criminal homicides were under 8,000, not 11,000. The NIJ has inflated the firearms homicides by some 37 percent. Full article http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...-won’t-impact-crime-pushes-registration
The people currently trying to ban "assault rifles" are the ones that are trying to label them "assault rifles" based on features. I don't know if they were the first to do this or if it was earlier anti-gun people, but they made that sh*t up.
These so called "Assault Weapons" are the last thing we can own that would allow us to stand against a government. You can stand with a sign, and get no results, or you can stand with a rifle and be heard. Nevermind the fact that these "weapons of war" as polititions are trying to call them, are used in an extreme low percentage of gun crimes/murders....
No, Assault Rifles exist. Looks like you got confused, like many people, between Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon. An Assault Rifle is a military rifle that is selective fire and uses an intermediate cartridge. It was named so by the Germans during the Second World War with their Sturmgewehr 44. The M16 is an Assault Rifle.
That's good to know, since I can't find any consistent definitions. Do you have a link by chance, and did you get the assault rifle/assault weapon definition off of wikipedia?
They are trying to label the AR15 as an assault rifle which it is not. It is a semi-auto rifle (or assault "style" weapon) that can only fire one round with each pull of the trigger. The M16 (an actual assault rifle) can be fully automatic which is illegal for private citizens to own. They are trying to ban the AR15 based on it's looks. Again the (AR15 - fires 45 - 60 rds minute) compared to the (M16 - fires up to 1000 rds a minute.)
The definition of Assault Rifle has existed since at least the Second World War. It has been defined since then as a select fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge. I'm getting this from the thousands of military books and documentaries I've read/seen. Assault Weapon is from US law from the 1980s.
Well, that is a simple question to answer. It is the "foot in the door" towards a complete ban on guns. First "assault weapons" then "Saturday night specials" then "sniper rifles" then... whatever else. It is my opinion that this originated in socialist circles as a way to divide gun owners - "hunters don't need assault weapons" - like the Second Amendment somehow protects HUNTERS... The "problem" with the current push for gun control is the changing demographic of gun owners in general - a large and growing segment of gun owners are NOT hunters. They are young, educated, professionals that take their rights and their security seriously. Think about it - they are specifically targeting a "pistol grip" - do they really want guns that are an ergonomic misfit? Yes they do. The federal government wants to LEGISLATE poor ergonomics. Wake up America!!! Your government WANTS TO LEGISLATE POOR ERGONOMICS. Sorry if it sounds like I am going off, but I really want people to think about that.
I sold my AR recently, got way more the I paid for it. I really don't have a problem with the AR15. With a ten round magazine it is nice rifle. Put 50 round magazine in it, and it becomes a very good killing tool for a mass shooting which happened in Colorado and Oregon. Personally I would make gun trafficking laws much tougher as well as crimes with firearms with very tough penalties. I would require magazine purchases that hold more then 10 rounds subject to background checks as well.
It is a nice number. My .22 pistol I believe holds 10 rounds. My .22 rifle holds maybe 10, I really don't know. My last firearm is a shotgun I keep it loaded for home defense. - - - Updated - - - It is a nice number. My .22 pistol I believe holds 10 rounds. My .22 rifle holds maybe 10, I really don't know. My last firearm is a shotgun I keep it loaded for home defense.
It is a Winchester 190, I suppose I could look it up on google, but I will stick with I don't know because it is a honest answer and it allows you to dishonestly twist my words. I only go shooting maybe 3 or 4 times a year, hardly the typical stereotypical gun owner.
Well, with an AR15, a five round magazine is the same size as a 10 round magazine. If a 5 round magazine were made at it's minimum size, it wouldn't fit into an AR15 magazine well. Also, if you're guarding your store and residence against rioters, 10 rds isn't nearly enough. Ask the Korean shopkeepers in South Central LA.
An AR would be a bad choice at close range. In the case of a riot a shotgun would be a better choice in my opinion.
guarding my store against rioters?? lol. I haven't had time to even think about that eventuality as ive been too busy planning my escape when the commies invade!!
Ten is a good number. Of course some firearms hold more some less. If I writing legislation 10 in my opinion would be a fair number that can handle all situations.
From the videos I've seen, the shopkeepers intent was to keep the rioters out of molotov cocktail (i.e. flaming bottles of gasoline) range. Hard to do that with a shotgun. If a riot gets to close range (i.e. under 50 feet) you're doomed.
LOL I don't need a 30 rnd magazine I want one. The second amendment doesn't deal with needs, it deals with rights. While target practicing and competitions I don't really like reloading so often. Why do you need 1 bullet?
