a serious question about assult rifles

It is my understanding that a certain California Senator and her staff picked firearms from a catalog which they thought looked dangerous and should be banned. The regulations were an attempt to codify these selections. Since the selections made no sense, the regulations don’t either. Not surprising because IMO the Senators from California show very little sense, Boxer absolutely none.
It is a case of “I can’t describe it but I know it when I see it.”
 
Originally posted by SaxonPig:
Shoots bullets.

You got that right!

Any gun that can launch a bullet scares those people who are afraid of anything that shoots a bullet!

They know that can't ban 'em all in one step . . . so they are back, year after year . . . trying to erode things a step at a time.
 
<span class="ev_code_RED">It would be easier to just list the guns that are legal!</span>
icon_mad.gif
 
Hitler actualy coined the term "Assault Rifle" (Sturmgewehr) to describe the new at the time MKb42/MP43 German medium-range automatic rifle. This rifle was capable of laying a sustained blanket of fire to keep the defenders' heads down during the assault. It was more powerful than the submachine gun (used for this purpose by the russians) and more man-portable than the light machine gun. By definition it must be capable of automatic fire.

The true definition is of no consequence to the people who want to ban them. As is their tactic, they must have something to demonize whether it be an object or an opposition politician. When only a moron would support these politicians if the politicians views were actually expressed, they simply attack/demonize the opposition to distract people from these politicians views/plans.
 
Originally posted by tom turner:
Originally posted by SaxonPig:
Shoots bullets.

You got that right!

Any gun that can launch a bullet scares those people who are afraid of anything that shoots a bullet!

They know that can't ban 'em all in one step . . . so they are back, year after year . . . trying to erode things a step at a time.

...and you can't explain to them that two identical bullets...traveling at the same speed...one from a banned gun...and one from an un-banned gun...don't know or care what the gun that fired them looks like...



.
 
The government isactually referring to the line in the Nazi Germany original Gun Control Act, (now in Our 1968 GCA) about "Sporting Weapon" there is nothing in our Constitution referring to the ownership of a sporting weapon.
 
"RGAmos" is correct. The military defination of a 'assualt rifle' is.

A selectable fire, (i.e. semi/full auto) medium power, shoulder fired, individual weapon.

What 'anti-gunners' call a 'assualt weapon'? Anything that looks 'scary'.
 
Ask the Australians on the board where the Remington 870s went.

I expect an attempt at registration of "assault weapons" and handguns before an outright ban. They need to know what we have before they ban it or some "misguided" folks might try to squirrel some of the horrible things away.

There is no tracking in most states after the firearm leaves the gun shop. Until they have knowledge of who has what, a ban will not be effective.
 
Originally posted by SaxonPig:
Shoots bullets.

True that. Its a conjured definition. The military doesn't identify any weapon as an Assault Rifle any more than they have an Attack Rifle. The Attack Position is the last concealed (hopefully with cover) position before the Line of Departure-then you hit the Assault Position--the last concealed position before the objective--then onto the objective. Soooo, your muzzle loader becomes the assault weapon as you move onto the enemy position. Bayonets are "fixed" at the Attack Position.
 
Actually --- the real definition that the government WANTS TO USE is --- IF it MAKES A BANG WHEN THE TRIGGER IS PULLED ITS AN ASSULT WEAPON.
 
Back
Top