[QUOTE]Originally posted by inbred
so what makes an AR-15 different than any other semi-automatic rifle? what makes a tec-9 any different than any other semi-automatic handgun?


There is no difference in my book; I just named the popular ones.

there are two types of 'assault weapons'. The true definition, the one the military uses, is that an assault weapon is one capable of selective fire; i.e. the abilitly to choose between semi-auto and full auto by flipping a switch.

Kinda true. But, full auto is illegal in the general population, but assault styled- weapons are just as deadly.


I agree that the general populace does not need assault weapons, but when talk is about banning assault weapons, they're really not talking about assault weapons. You ban an AR-15, that is basically the same thing as banning all semi-auto rifles. how do you distinguish them?

What distinguishes then is their ammo capacity. 90% of all "Non-Assault" styled, magazine-fed rifles and pistols can't hold 30 to 50 rounds of ammunition. Years ago they tried to ban 9MM cartridges that could hold 16 rounds because of the same reasoning. I don't know if it was successful or not regarding the handgun.

P.S. full metal jacket bullets will cause a lot less mass slaughter.

You don't believe that do you? We were not trained to 'wound' we were trained to kill. No Sergeant ever taught me to go for the leg. M-16's and AK-47's have such a high muzzle velocity, you can get hit in the leg and killed because of the internal damage and the exit wound. There is no "good" spot to get hit in by one of those weapons. A round from an M-16 can go in your leg, and come out your neck..

The bullet (round) doesn't expand; but this is not for the safety of the enemy. It doesn't expand thus giving the weapon longer range and accuracy; not merely to wound and demorilize the enemy.


You make good points Inbred- I don't think you're inbred at all...

PS: Shooting a soldier with a hollow-point bullet is considered murder, even in times or war; and they war outlawed because of the damage they would do to the human body. We had a few soldiers sneak them to the Gulf in 1991 because many of us didn't have side-arms; only our M-16's. During all of our many briefings on the use of deadly force, Geneva conventions, SOFA and what have you- we were constantly reminded not to use our personal weapons/ammunition. Many turned their personal weapons in to prevent being court-martialed...

 

Guns don't kill people, I kill people...

^^ My favorite bumper sticker.

 

The bottom line is the Second Amendment gives citizens the RIGHT to keep and bear arms and makes no mention of what type of gun. It don’t matter if it is full automatic or a typically BB gun.

A gun is a gun, and that is that, when it comes to the Second Amendment. When anti-gun people come along preaching about banning automatic weapons its simple a play of “feelings”.

AK-47, sounds so scary to the average citizen, full automatic weapon, sounds so scary to the average citizen.

The problem is not guns, the problem is with a population full of a lot of stupid naive people beginning with the anti-gun people, and then of course a bunch of limp wrested, no back bone politicians who either have no understanding of the Constitution and what a RIGHT means, or they too are just playing stupid like the anti-gun people.

As I have stated over and over it doesn’t matter how any one “feels” about guns and the Second Amendment, it only matters if they have enough “support” to get 2/3rds of both Houses to pass a bill to repel or change the Second Amendment. Then it will depend if they have the support of the majority of 3/4ths of the states (38).

Until then it really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks about guns…

If you give away your Second Amendment RIGHT you will soon after give away you’re First Amendment RIGHT and then soon after you will give up any RIGHT to freedom as we know it today (welcome to the socialist and/or communist America). That my friends is a fact of life and I can guarantee you that…

 

Good post. It bears repeating.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cia-agent

There is no difference in my book; I just named the popular ones.

you feel the same way as most folks who want to ban 'assault weapons' do. My concern is when they show a picture of an sks or an AR-15, when their intent is all semi-automatics. People who don't know much about guns think they're full auto military weapons, when they are no different than any other autoloader. They show 'mean' looking guns to use shock and fear when they have other motives...

Kinda true. But, full auto is illegal in the general population, but assault styled- weapons are just as deadly.

assault styled--meaning they LOOK like full auto versions. The masses who don't know anything about guns can't distinguish. They are shown a picture of an AR-15 and think the talk is about banning full-auto true assault weapons which are already illegal.

take a Browning BAR spec'd out for hunting, and you have a weapon that can do a whole lot more damage than an AR-15 ever would. You never see a picture of this gun when folks talk about banning semi-automatics, because there's no shock value

Browning BAR:


What distinguishes then is their ammo capacity. 90% of all "Non-Assault" styled, magazine-fed rifles and pistols can't hold 30 to 50 rounds of ammunition. Years ago they tried to ban 9MM cartridges that could hold 16 rounds because of the same reasoning. I don't know if it was successful or not regarding the handgun.

so an AR-15 would be OK if I use the 8 round clip that comes with it? what's to stop me from making my own high capacity magazines? some sheet metal and a spring and a little creativity is all I'd need. Any gun that is fed with a detatchable magazine can have one made that will hold as many rounds as you'd like. So, I guess we should ban all guns with a detatchable magazine?

You don't believe that do you? We were not trained to 'wound' we were trained to kill. No Sergeant ever taught me to go for the leg. M-16's and AK-47's have such a high muzzle velocity, you can get hit in the leg and killed because of the internal damage and the exit wound. There is no "good" spot to get hit in by one of those weapons. A round from an M-16 can go in your leg, and come out your neck..

The bullet (round) doesn't expand; but this is not for the safety of the enemy. It doesn't expand thus giving the weapon longer range and accuracy; not merely to wound and demorilize the enemy.

yes, I do believe that. You say that, but then you say this:

PS: Shooting a soldier with a hollow-point bullet is considered murder, even in times or war; and they war outlawed because of the damage they would do to the human body.

If I had to make a hypothetical choice of which I'd rather be hit in the chest with, a FMJ or a Swift A-frame, I'd take the FMJ every time. Few states allow FMJ bullets for hunting. Why, because they have a much higher wound to kill ratio than expanding bullets. As far as accuracy goes, FMJ's are horrible. The slightest nick to the tip as the round is chambered will effect accuracy. Hollow points create an air pocket for the 'tip' as the bullet travels. Ballistic tips use a very hard plastic tip that won't be deformed as the round is chambered. These designs are much more accurate than an FMJ, but they can quite explosive on impact. As for range, the overal ballistic coefficient of the bullet (aerodynamic shape) has much more effect on range than jacket type. Now yes, after it hits a target, an FMJ will travel/ricochet a lot farther, because it doesn't transfer much energy to the target. There's some things I'd love to hunt with FMJ's, but if I do it here in PA, I'm probably gonna get locked up.

You make good points Inbred- I don't think you're inbred at all...

Thank you. I appreciate that, although I am indeed inbred
. Nothing I enjoy more than a CIVILIZED debate. It doesn't matter what we feel about eachothers' opinions, as long as we can have a beer afterwards

 

Nice comebacks Inbred...

The bottom line is- and as bad as I hate to say 01 XLT is right about anything, 01 XLT Sport is right about this. This issue will not be solved on this board. Heck, we can't even get it solved in the Supreme Court; that's because everyone has different opinions on what was written and what was meant/intended by our founding fathers. Some things I agree with, some I don't- but I alone am powerless to change it.

I don't think anyone not sworn into our US military, has a need for a .50 cal. gun, or an assault weapon; but I am not the final authority; our government is.

I think every SOLDIER, Marine, sailor and air man that serves this country, and is released honorably- should depart with their M-16 and two magazines. That would not only ensure that the US had a real militia; but it would have a militia that would actually be trained to use the weapon effectively, could train others to use theirs and would answer the call and not hide behind Mommy's skirt; if the call ever came.

If we all took our M-16's home- I'd bet dimes to doughnuts that the "Home Invasion" style robberies would drop drastically; knowing that millions of US households had a well-trained marksman in the house with an M-16.

Some of these military-minded, Non-veterans who spout off about 2nd amendment and the need for a militia, would probably pee their pants if they were to go to the mailbox tomorrow and find a draft notice in there; even if they agreed to let them take their favorite gun with them.

Inbred: What you say is true about the fragility of NATO ball ammunition- but, at the range with which we will be engaging the enemy- a nick in the projectile will not effect it's range, speed or accuracy enough to benefit the person on the business-end..

What you must remember is- service members are trained to care for and safeguard their ammunition and their weapon as if their life depended on it- because, it does... This is the difference between letting anybody have this sort of weapon compared to someone ho knows what they're doing.

Without my rifle, I am useless. Something every service man/woman knows- if they are in a combat zone....

I'd like to see them gone, but that's not going to happen. But, folks had them before I was born- and others will have them long after I'm gone...

 

Well this topic went fairly smoothly. Normally when people speak out about infringing on the Second Amendment, it gets heated.

I am pleased thus far.

I am going to bed now.

 

Dude relax the beer can was there to show reference to the size of the bullet vs the can. If i was irresponsible as you "assume" and you know me NOT. The beers came after the shooting never before so go wash your mouth out with soap for your emotional outbreak and all is forgiven.. When you park your F-150 do you have a beer near it if you do then you my friend are also irresponsible I possess this rifle for enjoyment only for long range shooting. The thing weighs in at 46 lbs. its going to be kinda hard to shoulder this weapon or table it and get a shot off before i get a real beating first. Thats why i have 22 more guns just in case. I collect them, shoot them and at times i hug one or to.

 

*Two

Does anyone see a weird coincidence between guns and women?

 

I stand corrected thank you Joe.
yea but guns you can put away and they stop barking.

 

I second that.

 

Ivory tastes best.

I retract the irresponsibility statement as it sounds like you do understand the difference, but many "accidents" where firearms are involved also include alcohol.

I hope you understand my position on this. I was taught to treat all firearms for what they are: a tool in your hands capable of taking human life.

 

I agree with that as well.

Now how would a person like myself go about getting one of these? As much as I would have loved to join the military, I'm slightly disabled and could never in a million years qualify for duty. I've taken a lot of flack on some very liberal boards because I am a gung ho type of guy, but I have never served. Believe me, if I could, I would.

P.S. Thanks for your service, If I never told you before.

 

Now, come on, it’s not that bad is it???

Here, just to show you how easy it is to agree with someone that I may at times disagree with I post the following quote from you below…

That is one of the best damn ideas I have ever heard…

Of course I was in the Navy (10 years) so we didn’t really get to use M-16’s but did get trained on 45’s and shotguns for security details aboard ships. I’d love to get trained on an M-16 and own one in case something was going on because I would be one of the first ones to show up when and where needed.

I would still show up now with my 10-gauge shotgun and boxes of ammo and I pity the fool that gets in my way of freedom and my daughter’s RIGHT to live a free life…

 

Actually, the 2nd ammendment only recognizes our right to keep and bear arms. The right is already ours as free people.