Straight Talk about "Assault Rifles" and the Liberal Perception

Since almost no kids are killed by 'assault weapons' except for nutcases like Lanza where it would not matter what weapon he used. He could do the same damage with any gun and it isn't the gun that is the problem it is the nutcase. I guess you worry more about the cosmetics of a gun than the nutcases behind it or the children.

 

Oh, so you are pro-assault rifle then. A typical .223 AR will penetrate much less than your typical deer rifle.

 

If you aren't willing to make the defense of your wife and children, your most important duty as a man, father and husband, you are no man at all. Those who are willing to outsource the safety of their family to government employees tell me that they really don't value their family at all. as Jeffrey Snyder ("A NATION OF COWARDS", the PUBLIC INTEREST April 1995 IIRC) if you don't find your own life (or that of your family's) worth fighting for, why should some guy who doesn't know you risk his life for yours even if he is being paid 50K a year?

 

I agree with the OP. When you engage unarmed combatants in a closed area, it hardly matters if you are using a pistol or an assault rifle. For a trained soldier, one would actually prefer something semi-automatic or bolt action. Even modern day soldiers only use automatic firing mechanisms when they are engaging scattered targets in tactical close quarters. You see a lot of wannabe "terrorists" who will engage a crowd by ambushing them with a spray of bullets before running out of ammunition and being shot down, usually only wounding a couple people.

 

automatic fire out of a rifle-to suppress movement or break contact

semi automatic aimed fire-to inflict casualties

 

When someone expertly clarifies what I posted using a fourth of the words it makes me quite disappointed in my speaking abilities

 

And rightfully so. He didn't clarify your words. He corrected your message.

 

Not sure what the difference is. The only difference between his post and mine was the fact that he brought up "suppression," as a use for assault rifles, which is also true.

 

No. He said "automatic fire from rifles", because he knows that there are no "assault rifles" in the US arsenal.

 

I don't see a real conflict between our three positions. the term "assault" is not the "Criminal term" gun banners would like the sheeple to envision when the graboids call AR 15s "assault weapons". Rather assault means a military action where infantry try to overrun or destroy a fixed position of the enemy. IN the streets of Stalingrad, the heavy Maxim machine guns were slow to maneuver for the Russians as were the MG 42s. "assault rifles" allowed several fast moving infantry soldiers to pour automatic fire on a fixed position so other soldiers using bazookas, satchel charge or flamethrowers could close within effective distance of the fixed position and destroy it.

when Graboids apply the term "assault" to semi auto rifles, they are not only idiots, they are not being honest with the term "assault" that was originally applied to select fire rifles

 

I concede that my post was based on semantics. My skin hasn't thickened enough yet to allow for laymen s terms. I'm still stuck in the belief that every single American Citizen is responsible for knowing their duty as regards the 2A. The "well regulated militia" is YOU, and me. It's part of how we earn our keep around here.

 

Pretty much all hunting rifles will go through walls.

 

So if they are so relatively powerless why is it so important to you to not limit their availability?

 

He is not saying they are powerless. He is illustrating the fact that most hunting rounds are significantly more powerful than "assault weapon" rounds, thereby proving the ignorance of these anti-gun politicians who argue that these "assault weapons" cannot be used for hunting deer because they are too powerful.

 

Why would anyone hunt dear with a so-called "assault" rifle?

 

I wouldn't walk into a field of feral pigs (which is legal in states like Texas, New Mexico, Arixona, etc.) with a traditional hunting rifle, ie bolt action Rem700. Why? There are usually 30 of the pigs. You hunt feral pigs with a rifle with a standard capacity magazine and big heavy bullets just like an AK or an AR with 77 grain bullets.

Eta

https://youtu.be/zQxmyTfbV1o
The problem with graboids is they can't think outside of their narrow little tunnel vision box. THEY can't perceive a need for anything they would consider "hunting" so they deem it unnecessary for anyone else to have it too.

 

Accuracy for one. Most AR's have floating barrels which makes them more accurate. The AR-15 is used for hunting varmint and medium sized animals and the AR-10 for larger animals. Would you rather someone wound instead of making a good shot?

Hunting with the AR-15
Part 1: from ground squirrels to deer
- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/06/12/hunting-ar-15/#sthash.twgrhnCt.dpuf

 

Why don't they have floating barrels on hunting rifles?

 

Some do, some dont. Cost is one. The time and effort to bed an action takes patience and skill, not everyone can do it. Ar's are a good example of an everyman rifle because a person with a bench vice, basic tool knowledge, a not-so-heavy hand, and an armory wrench can work on an AR.

 

Nature of the build. Most expensive ones do but many of the rifles in the same price range as an AR have to float their own barrels where the stock does not touch the barrel, increasing accuracy. For the AR if it doesn't have a floating barrel it is just a matter of changing out the type of hand guard. Most ARs come with 'the thing that goes up'. For hunting rifles it involves cutting out part of the existing stock and glassing areas. An AR is simply a rifle with an action that has been around for 100 years. It just looks scary to some people because of TV and Movies.

 

You don't need an FFL to own select fire or full auto weapons. You just need to have the tax stamp

 

Only pre 1968. Any new ones, you have to have an FFL.

 

It has already been explained, countless times in fact, that the second amendment has no correlation with hunting. The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment deals with self defense, not hunting. That means there is a constitutional right to use deadly force against other human beings when they are threatening your well being.

There will be no discussion about the notion of using certain firearms for the purpose of hunting.

 

To even begin addressing this question, there must be a standard definition for what constitutes a hunting rifle. Semi-automatic rifles have been available for the purpose of hunting since the early twentieth century.

For the purpose of discussion, the matter will be limited to traditional bolt action rifles. One key problem with floating the barrel is addressing how a wooden stock can swell with humidity during warmer weather. Any wood removed from the barrel channel in order to float the barrel, would need to be sufficient to compensate for the temporary swelling state.

Google and youtube provide a wealth of information on nearly all subjects.

 

I think you mean pre 86. And I'm aware of that, I was just pointing out you don't need an FFL to own one.