You don't actually know what you are blathering about, especially the "armor piercing" bullet pablum. But carry on, that has never stopped you before.
hate to break this to confuse you with facts but that is already illegal in every state. Holder just told his boys to ignore the law in fast and furious. ATF form 4473 is required for every firearms purchase and has to be submitted to the ATF and cleared before you can take your weapon from the store http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
Well first off a semi-automatic, magazine fed rifle is not a weapon of mass destruction. Second why does it matter if you own one or one hundred of these weapons when you can only use one at a time? Third why are semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles targeted all the time when they make up about 1% of all gun crime? Fourth why used the term "high powered rifle" in regards to these specific rifles (often termed 'assault rifles', sometimes called 'machine guns' by idiots) when there is a wide variety of ammunition, and many rounds that are much more powerful than what these rifles will fire? The one point he made that I agree with is that we do have a culture where violence is over-emphasized. Still it's not really a problem. Guns aren't a problem either, especially "assault rifles". Again they constitute about 1% of gun crimes, really not an issue. The thing they have is that they look mean and so it's easy for anti-gun people to point at them and say "OMG look it's something bad!" I just don't buy the anti-gun arguments at all. I've been dealing with weapons for well over a decade and have not accidentally shot anyone or been overwhelmed with the urge to kill (well maybe a little )
The AK is a lousy rifle. It's cheap, it's durable...that's about it. Accuracy is dismal. I have used one (supposedly, one of the BETTER ones), and it was terrible. The M-14 is far superior.
Come on, the AK is not that bad. It may not be very accurate but it can take more than a spritz of dirt and keep firing. The round isn't bad at all, certainly enough to cause some damage to a vehicle (nothing armored, but still). With modern combat taking place close in it's really not that bad. If you wanted to shoot past 200m yeah clearly get something else, but still it's a cheap and reliable weapon. Edit: I mean I just said the same thing you did, but it comes down to accuracy isn't everything. Like I said with most combat situations taking place close in (<100m) it's really not a problem. That durability pays off too. Get some dirt knocked into an M16 and you're looking at jams before you clean it up. The AK, that sucker keeps going. I've heard the M14 is good, and certainly has a larger round, but you're also looking at more weight and less ammo. Be good for a distance fight, but up close not so much.
Ok, then it's settled ... blast away taking-out as many zombies as you can until the AR-15 jams ... drop it ... pick-up the AK (should another AR-15 not be available) ... since any remaining zombies are closing-in ... then go to side-arms ...
AK is CHEAP, rarely jams, and you can still get surplus ammo for a reasonable price. I would not own one myself
They must have changed then. I've seen cases where both candidates in a race have basically the same gun stances but they favor the GOP candidate for no apparent reason. Jon Tester pointed this out for his own race a while back.
Zombies? I'd go AK. Cheap, good for close quarters, won't (*)(*)(*)(*) up (well less likely). Really though you need a machete. It won't run out of bullets.
even dirty harry reid kisses the NRA's butt and yes at times they kissed his http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/27/nra-to-harry-reid-get-lost/
These gun control posts are ridiculous. Legal measures of gun control affect only a certain portion of the populace--sane and law-abiding citizens. The other portion (insane criminals) have no regard for legal measures of gun control. If there were more restrictions on the LEGAL gun market in terms of what could and could not be purchased by law-abiding citizens, what the hell gives people the notion that these criminals with insane tendencies are going to be affected? Do you honestly think they acquire assault weapons from Scheels All-Sports? And even if they did and gun control were amped up, what exactly is going to stop them from finding the non-legal methods of acquiring the same weaponry? The answer to that ridiculously easy question is: nothing. Criminally insane people are dubbed as such for a reason. Their mindset compels them to enact their "plans" or atrocities or what have you, regardless of the laws that are put in place. The only way guns could possibly be taken out of the hands of criminals would be if we were able to "uninvent" guns. That simply isn't going to happen. So for the time being, how about we allow those law-abiding citizens who so wish to carry firearms on their person to do as such so that in the event that one or more of these law-abiding citizens happening to carry a firearm on their person witness a lunatic gunman open fire on a crowd or something of the sort, they can be ready to do what they must to save their own lives and the lives of others? This is the only logical course of action. The liberal touted idea that legally discouraging firearms for law-abiding citizens, ridiculous bullet taxes, and things of that nature will somehow prevent crazies like this piece of filth who shot up the theater in Colorado from acquiring the means to do damage to innocent people is ludicrous. All that's needed to prove my point is for anyone reading this to take a look online and read about the booby traps he had set up in his apartment. Even if he hadn't been able to acquire a so-called "assault weapon," (which is still ridiculous, because even if they were illegal, he could still buy one illegally), he could have accomplished something incredibly similar by taking a backpack with a few of those improvised explosive devices he had concocted for the police and SWAT teams when they raided his house and tossing them about in the movie theater. Gun control does not "control" criminal use of firearms or other deadly means of killing innocents. End of story.
Conceal and carry isn't allowed in any movie theater I've been to. Who thinks james holmes didn't know that?
The complete stupidity of punishing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals should be obvious to even apelike morons. What does this say about *******s?
M-14 is mainly a battlefield weapon, the AK-47 is an assault weapon. When I was in the Army, the M-14 was the standard infantry sniper weapon (good out to 2000 meters), the AK-47 isn't much good over 600 meters. They are 2 different weapons. Kabuki Joe
Actually the Second Amendment was written to ensure that the slave owners would have the necessary weapons on hand to put down any slave rebellions. Since there was no real police force at that time the slave owners wanted to be guaranteed the right to possess weapons to rapidly form militias to suppress potential slave revolts. It was an instrument of oppression, not an instrument of freedom. The interesting thing is that countless towns in the 1800s passed laws to disarm citizens within city limits. History doesn't show any offended party taking his constitutional right to bear arms to the courts. It's only fairly recently that people have insisted on the right to pack guns in cities. Another thing to remember is that the right to bear arms is part of most State constitutions in their Declaration of Rights. Some States omit it.
