Gimme a break.

 

Well until someone can satisfice this postulation for me I'm against all gun control.

Law abiding citizens are not a danger regardless of whether they have a pea shooter or a bazooka. Criminals on the other hand are. Gun control laws control the former not the latter. Passing gun control laws disarm the law-abiding citizen and empower the criminal.

 

If that's not sig worthy material, I dunno what is.

 

Clip, magazine- whatever you want to call it Quintin- you know what I'm talking about- and yes, the word clip and magazine are interchangable. I've never heard of a banana "clip" referred to as a banana "magazine"...

I'm not trying to take your guns. If it makes you feel better, pile all 100 of them in your bed, and sleep with them for all I care. It still doesn't mean you need an assault rifle. If anyone likes them so much, then join Army or Marine infantry, then volunteer for duty in Iraq. They'll let you use one to your hearts desire. Actually serving would take reall ballz to go with those bullets (or rounds), so I doubt the line will be long for that. At least you'll get to shoot it once in a while (legally) and at something, rather than having it on display, or taking it to the rnge- because you can't shoot game with them (Or has that changed?)

The constitution gives you the right to bear arms, and until that right is overturned, knock yourself out... I personally think the country would be safer if we did what Switzerland does (or used to do) and that for everyone that served in the military, you take your weapon home with you. That means damn-near every homeowner in Switzerland has a gun, and gun crime there is pretty low. Why? Because males are required to serve, and after serving, they go home- a PROPERLY TRAINED killing machine, armed, with the advantage on anyone who enters his home. Not some guy who went to Big-Tex Guns, and bought an AR-15 because he liked the way it looks.

If every GI who's served since WWII had brought home their rifle and a Beretta 9mm, there'd be a lot less home-invasion style robberies, and the person who had such a weapon, would know how to use it.

I agree, gun control only stops the law-abiding citizens from legally obtaining a weapon- not the criminals. In that way, they are much like locks. They keep not so honest people out, but the real crook will still get in. My point is, just because the Democrats are in control of Congress, doesn't mean they're coming for your guns...

I'm sure some Democrats love deer meat just as much as Republicans.

 

What part of "It's not a matter of need, it's a matter of want" did you not understand? And besides, I don't own any "assault rifles." Assault rifle implies the weapon is selective fire - for generic purposes, a machinegun according to the ATF - and mine is not. To own such a weapon would bring more requirements and qualifications that I'd have to meet, which I could meet as a law abiding citizen if I so chose to. If I'm in the letter of the law, and I have the finances, why can't I own an evil "assault rifle?"
Why does somebody always have to reach for this dumbass argument? Your ****'s bigger than mine or something? "I'm better than you 'cause I enlisted! Only the military should have evil assault rifles!" Please, find a better argument than that. And before I get a glut of mean e-mails, note that this is in no way meant as a diss towards members of our military - but I hear this stupid excuse just about every time I try to debate the subject of "assault rifles" and weapons that should/shouldn't be restricted, it gets old fast.

Restricting ownership of firearms has been the first step in the tyranny of societies throughout history - Hitler (who came up with that stupid "sporting purposes" clause), Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam, Castro...need I go on?

Shoot it legally? You mean there's some other way to shoot? As a responsible shooter, the only place I shoot is at a closed range with a sufficient backstop for the cartridges I shoot. The firing line is clearly marked, no one is allowed forward of it until the line is declared clear with actions open, magazines out, chamber flags in, and safeties on. You're saying that as if I (and millions of other folks) step off the back porch and pop rounds off indiscriminately at whatever may be in the area. "Hey look, there's the mail truck, fire for effect!"

As far as shooting game with 'em, depends on the state. In general, magazine capacity is limited at 5 rounds, and some states have caliber restriction laws; in Georgia, if I so chose to, I could take my AR15 whitetail hunting with a 5 round magazine and be 100% legal.

But I shoot my AR15 in a competitive format. I don't hunt.

There's private firms, such as Gunsite, Thunder Ranch, Blackwater, LFI, Frontsight, and several others that offer firearms training to qualified citizens who so choose to go. This goes back to personal initiative - there are folks out there who take it upon themselves to seek out proper instruction and training in the defense use of firearms.

And with all due respect, I know a little about the firearms qualification courses the branches of the military use; I'm honestly not too worried about an average grunt that cleans the basic marksmanship qualification course, and any civilian who dedicates themselves to become proficient with their choice of weapon, they shouldn't be worried either.

See above. Given the range time an average grunt spends learning how to effectively employ their weapons, especially one that doesn't have an infantry MOS, I doubt they're any more qualified to defend themselves with a firearm than the average joe schmoe who spends a couple Saturdays a month at the range.
I won't be holding my breath.

 

I think my wife has a few of those. She always she's going to check out her new ba--oh, uh nevermind.

 

First, the average citizen cannot own an AK-47. In true form an AK-47 is a selectable fire rifle. Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930's you must have a Class III weapons permit to legally own one. Those are just a little more than hard to come by.

Secondly, the "sporsterized" version of the AK-47 is an excellent short-range deer weapon. It shoots the 7.62x39mm cartridge that is nearly ballisticly identical to the 30-30. It just so happens that the 30-30 has killed more deer than any other cartridge.

Thirdly, the Democrats have tried to ban guns. What else would you call the "Sara Brady Scary Looking Gun Law"? If you actually read this most horrid piece of legislation and know ANYTHING about guns you will be amazed at just how stupid the writers are. These people watched too many Rambo movies and listened to too many rap songs. Most of the defining features that created an "assault weapon" were purely cosmetic and in no way functional. They have done it before what stops them from trying again?

I conclude this rant with the idea, "If gun control works, then Marion Berry would still have his wallet"

Raoul your quote is sig worthy

Joe

 

Nobody said you couldn't- it's your right, for now. So stop cherry-picking and argue the whole topic, rather than bits and pieces. I just know that if it ever hits a ballot to abolish them (What ever definition of an "assault" rifle you want to bring forth) I will vote for the abolishment of civilian ownership of said rifle. If I had Mark Cuban's money, I'd like to have my own F-15, but- I doubt they'd sell me one- even a stripped down, unarmed version (If I were qualified to fly it).


Yes, just ask your wife. Just kidding, you left the door open, so I had to take the shot (No pun intended). It's a valid arguement, that's why you tire of it.

No Reverend FeelGood. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

This is not about "responsible" shooters Quintin. Do you think everyone with enough money to shove across a counter to get one of those weapons is responsible? I'm not concerned about "responsible" shooters, but we should all be worried about irresponsible people having access to such a weapon.

We see that...

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about... Either that, or you've only know Air Force or Navy folks- who don't live the same lifestyle as Army and Marines. Not anything against those two branches- they have a different mission... If you are talking Army or Marines, you must be confusing the Reserve and National Guard with full timers. Even at that, for the first 8 weeks of their Career (12 if they choose Marines) you eat, sleep and s**t with that weapon. When you're not training on other stuff, you're learning about the weapon, proper shooting techniques, sighting, zeroing, weapon safety, the use of deadly force, and on and on... It would take a lot of 1-2 hour Saturdays to make up for what the average soldier or Marine learns in Basic Training. Then, once you reach your duty station, you have to qualify twice a year, but there are also practice ranges throughout the year, and you have to remain proficient with your M-16. You may also get assigned to an M203, an M-60, a SAW or an AT4, so in addition to the M-16 ranges, you have to go to those ranges too. Not to mention the mock-city, urban operation drills, NTC, and aggressor/defender (Op-4)training, and I was in Commo... I can't even imagine what the average infantryman does, if we had to do all of that.

We may have different jobs, but every soldier, I don't care if they are a cook, or a mechanic, is an infantryman first.

Fail to qualify twice on your basic weapon (M-16) and you will do the duffle-bag drag, back to your home of record.

 

Quintin is laying down some good points.

Vader, that statement you made was perfect.