All firearms, absolutely every last single one of them, is an inherently lethal weapon. It does not matter what type, or configuration, or caliber, all are deadly when used improperly. The law makes no distinction between using a semi-automatic rifle, or a break-open shotgun, if it results in someone being injured or otherwise killed. There are no firearms in existence that are more dangerous or deadly than any others. None of them pose any risk to anyone, unless someone makes the intentional and deliberate choice to engage in reckless and illegal behavior, no different from operation of a motor vehicle.
Simply because something is done, does not mean that it is actually being done legally. The handgun prohibitions of the district of columbia and the city of Chicago are proof of such. As was the prohibition on advertising the sale of handguns in the city of California.
The courts have said otherwise. At least one lower court admitted that firearms such as the AR-15 qualify as being in common use.
SCOTUS has also stated that the fact that all firearms are deadly is not sufficient reason to restrict any of them.
First, I was not trying to obfuscate your comments. Only that this was the specific point I wished to address. I do agree NBPP are not necessarily a hate group and that at times SPLC is not always trustworthy. In this specific matter, the NBPP has criticized Zionism and the latter group, like others, has interpreted anti-Zionism for anti-Semitism. Such an interpretation is without warrant as we have discussed on other threads. Disarm the NBPP? Hell no. On the contrary, let them be fully armed. If the state of Texas or any local cop dares to stop the membership and demand proof of gun ownership, the cops should be fired immediately. Same in every other state as well.
The post in question was indeed read. And the post in question referred to semi-automatic firearms as being "inherently lethal weapons" when they are simply not. All firearms, absolutely every last one of them, is capable of killing a person when used for such purposes. No firearm is anymore dangerous or deadly than any other firearm, and they cannot be differentiated as if they are. Do try to pay attention, as well as keep up.
Agreed. Have you not advocated in the past for stricter gun control laws that would likely undermine the right for perceived hate groups like NBPP to access firearms? Perhaps I've confused you for someone else.
That again is an evasion. The question was why would anyone want such a weapon in a civilian environment given its obvious inherent lethality ? Sport or pointless hunting cannot justify that given the repercussions
Every firearm has "inherent lethality". Sport or hunting is the justification given to us by Congress in the Gun Control Act of 1968. There has been an average of 13 people per year killed in mass shootings in the US since 2004 where the shooter used an "assault weapon". Water is used to murder more people each year.
what a silly claim. Your opinion means nothing on this issue. what are the "repercussions" given clubs and feet/hands are used to kill more people than such rifles
A hunting rifle is far more 'lethal' than an AR. In fact, the standard AR ammunition was designed to injure humans more often than kill them. A 'kill shot' removes one soldier from the battlefeild. A wounded soldier is typically carried away by two more, and eats up a lot of resources at the feild hospital. The AR was designed to win a war of attrition with the soviets by eating up resources- wounding more than killing. A .308 or 30.06 or 12ga or similar was designed to kill a moose or a grizzly, and consequently turns humans into hamburger; is far more 'lethal'. Once again, your terminology demonizes classic hunting weapons as much as 'assault rifles.' Do you have an argument for banning semi-automatic rifles that isn't likely to be used to ban most/all other types of firearms as well?
You've got gun bans in every state in America already. Crapping on about the constitution? Do me a favour. Since you don't need them and you can't behave responsibly with them, get a better hobby. Take up cards or Playstation. Boo hoo. No more Rambo fantasies for you. You'll get over it.
Then demonstrate such. If such a ludicrous claim is going to be made on the part of yourself, then actually show the evidence used to justify it. List each of the fifty states in the united states, and show the firearm prohibitions in each one of the fifty states.
Do you really believe that the DOD purposefully put in the hands of our infantry, and Marines, a battle rifle that was designed to wound rather than kill? Do you really think that that was the reason the DOD switched from the M14 to the M16?
The Department of Defense switched from the M14 to the M16 because it was determined the larger rifle was too unwieldy by inexperienced troops, and the larger, more powerful caliber was serving no purpose at the closer ranges combat was being engaged in. The M14 was produced when combat between infantry troops was still being engaged in at six hundred yards or greater. It had absolutely nothing to do with the smaller rifle being classified as anymore "deadly" than the larger rifle. Beyond that matter, the ammunition for the M16 was an offshoot of a varmint hunting cartridge released on the sporting market years previously.
Nobody said it did. Nor was it picked because it was considered less deadly. Again, respond to the actual post, not what you'd like the post to have said.
