I think semi-automatic weapons should be banned.

You have got to be kidding me.

For Rockmom:

 

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree.

Fact: Many Americans own guns without ever having taken a safety course That is true and I do agree that people should need to know how to handle a firearm safely before owning one. Being lisenced to own one I might be okay with. Similar to lisencing for driving. However I think this should not include specific registering of a firearm.

 

Fact: People die from the misuse of guns either by themselves or at the hands of others True however people die from the misuse of medication, cars and a number of other items as well.

 

Fact: There are other semi-automatic weapons than those described, and there is no plausible reason for a regular citizen to own one. You can't say "plausible" reason as fact really. That is an opinion. The first part of your comment is a fact the second is conjecture and opinion. Do not mistake the two. Strong feelings to not necessitate fact. There are a number of reasons to own them from hunting, to sport, to personal defense. Some smal semi-automatic rifles are actually as useful if nor more so than handguns for home defense.

 

Fact: Legislation could be narrowed to define the semi-automatic weapons banned. That is true, but is it necessary?

 

 

Fact: Registration of guns infringes on no one's rights. One is still allowed to own a gun. There is just a record of such ownership I don't find it to be worth the risk. There have been a number of documented cases mentioned by Run To State as to where that led to the eventual confiscation of firearms by a government. I find it a tad idealistic to say that our governement would never do it because we are "different." We are still human and still have the same failings and fears. I don't like the idea of taking that risk. Do I think it WILL happen? Most likely not, but I prefer to be cautious.

 

 

Fact: Gun ownership is a responsibility, as well as a right. No argument here. Many other rights are responsibilities too, guns just have a more"harsh" feel to them than other rights that are as dangerous if not more so.

 

Fact: ALL rights carry responsibilities. I agree here too.

 

 

Fact: Proponents of gun owners' "rights" use self-defense as an excuse for such rights...no less "fear mongering" than those who are opponents. Possibly yes. Arguments on both sides can easily be described as fear mongering. I personally would rather fall on the side of being able to protect myself with a firearm if need be.

I'll just repeat the points I made in the very beginning. I'm against the following types of weapons being in the hands of the general public:

 

Any weapoon that shoots more than one bullet with a trigger pull. Well these are not illegal, and I have n issue with that. However in order to legally acquire one you need a Class 3 Lisence. This lisence is expensive and difficult to obtain. It also requires registering the weapon(s) with the Federal Government and explaining WHY you need it. So it really isn't an easy thing to get.

 

Any weapon that can shoot through steel. Wha gauge of steel? Steel isn't a universal strength or thickness. A centimeter think plate of steel isn't stopping a bullet from any gun, that should make it illegal? Be more specific if you would.

 

Any weapon that can render a cop's vest totally useless. Knives actualy make a cop's vest useless, so I think that we need to ban those too. The majority of hunting rifles would do this actually. There really isn't a such thing as "military bullet" and "civilian bullet." The exception to that is AP, tracer, Sabot and other types of specific rounds. However these are not sold to the general public.

 

There is no justifiable purpose for anyone to own such guns.

I don't mind types of guns and ammo necessary for hunting or target shooting. But these other guns belong in the hands of the military only. Now if people want to call that "Democratic diatribe" and "unqualified nonsense," then so be it.

 

You need to be specific when talking about "such guns." I hate to say it but much of what you are telling me is lacking the kind of detail needed to make much of a case off of anything other than emotion and "feel good" kind of stuff. And where target shooting is concerned non-military models of the M-4 Carbine, M-14 and AR-15 are just as valid for that use. In addition to the FN Fal and AK-47. Modifying them is not an easy task either and all the parts needed to do so actually require the aforemenioned Class 3 lisence in order to obtain them.

 

A gun isn't always the issue, the ammunition is important to rememeber as well. Do we want limits on grain count? Because certain bullets at certain velocities can pierce anything.

 

You need to be more specific if you want to argue anything other than emotion.

You need to be more specific if you want to argue anything other than emotion.

You all on the gun crazy side seem to realize that you're argument doesn't hold water. Thats why you keep splitting hairs, and asking for more specifics. The "how thick of steel?" line cracked me up! :lol:

 

If a bear is chasing me in the woods, I need not know, the genus and species. I know to run. Same thing with over-kill weapons and ammo. Simple as that.

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree. Let's compromise: The purpose of guns is to harm.

 

 

Fact: Many Americans own guns without ever having taken a safety course That is true and I do agree that people should need to know how to handle a firearm safely before owning one. Being lisenced to own one I might be okay with. Similar to lisencing for driving. However I think this should not include specific registering of a firearm. I could agree to licensing. My issue is not so much with the weapons themselves, as it is with those that own them.

 

Fact: People die from the misuse of guns either by themselves or at the hands of others True however people die from the misuse of medication, cars and a number of other items as well. True in your examples as well. But those don't present a compelling argument to not take steps to prevent the misuse of firearms. Dangerous medications require prescriptions, pharmacists require licensing. Driving a car requires licensing....steps to prevent misuse.

 

Fact: There are other semi-automatic weapons than those described, and there is no plausible reason for a regular citizen to own one. You can't say "plausible" reason as fact really. That is an opinion. The first part of your comment is a fact the second is conjecture and opinion. Do not mistake the two. Strong feelings to not necessitate fact. There are a number of reasons to own them from hunting, to sport, to personal defense. Some smal semi-automatic rifles are actually as useful if nor more so than handguns for home defense.Very true that I mixed an opinion with the fact. I should have separated the sentences into two, and clarified the last statement as my opinion.

 

Fact: Legislation could be narrowed to define the semi-automatic weapons banned. That is true, but is it necessary? I believe so.

 

 

Fact: Registration of guns infringes on no one's rights. One is still allowed to own a gun. There is just a record of such ownership I don't find it to be worth the risk. There have been a number of documented cases mentioned by Run To State as to where that led to the eventual confiscation of firearms by a government. I find it a tad idealistic to say that our governement would never do it because we are "different." We are still human and still have the same failings and fears. I don't like the idea of taking that risk. Do I think it WILL happen? Most likely not, but I prefer to be cautious. This is most likely another debate. I personally believe that the structure of American government prevents such an event. Maybe I just have more faith in our ability to maintain a government "by the people, for the people."

 

 

Fact: Gun ownership is a responsibility, as well as a right. No argument here. Many other rights are responsibilities too, guns just have a more"harsh" feel to them than other rights that are as dangerous if not more so. And many of our rights have restrictions. Freedom of speech is protected, yet regulated, for instance.

 

Fact: ALL rights carry responsibilities. I agree here too. How off-kilter you must be feeling! :lol: While you have "sort of" disagreed with me, you are still agreeing with me. :lol:

 

 

Fact: Proponents of gun owners' "rights" use self-defense as an excuse for such rights...no less "fear mongering" than those who are opponents. Possibly yes. Arguments on both sides can easily be described as fear mongering. I personally would rather fall on the side of being able to protect myself with a firearm if need be. Once more, a "possible" agreement! :lol: It is fair to say, however, that the charge of "fear mongering" should not be lobbed only toward those who oppose the NRA's contention that it is their "God given right" to own a gun. :lol:

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree. Let's compromise: The purpose of guns is to harm. I just wanted to use a different color.

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree. Let's compromise: The purpose of guns is to harm. I just wanted to use a different color. And you chose pink? :lol: You don't need a gun..you need a purse!

Fact: The purpose of guns is to kill That is debatable, not necessarily. It can be to disable which is not always fatal. Hoowever for the sake of argument I suppose I can agree. Let's compromise: The purpose of guns is to harm. I just wanted to use a different color. And you chose pink? :lol: You don't need a gun..you need a purse!

That's either a rule #2 or a rule #3 violation, and when I figure out which it is, someone is going to be in so much trouble. And for your information, its bright salmon.

This thread is very pretty...

And for your information, its bright salmon.

Your honor, I move for a summary judgment.

That's either a rule #2 or a rule #3 violation, and when I figure out which it is, someone is going to be in so much trouble. And for your information, its bright salmon.

 

 

Someone needs to get a box of 64 Crayola's. If it's anything, it's Fuschia. If you want to be one of the girls, you are going to HAVE to get your colors right! :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

 

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the AK-47 and the M16 rifle. Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.

Definition

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[citation needed] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle and served to popularize the concept. The translation “assault rifle” gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the name giver StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have all of the following five characteristics to qualify as an assault rifle:[1][2][3]

Is a carbine sized individual weapon with provision to be fired from a shouldered position.

Barrel length is usually 400 mm to 500 mm (16” to 20”)

Is capable of selective fire.

Fires from a locked breech.

Utilizes an intermediate powered-cartridge.

Ammunition is supplied from a large capacity detachable box magazine.

Most common is a capacity of 30 rounds, sometimes 20 rounds, and also some times 40 or 50 rounds on current and newer weapons.

The following features are commonly found on assault rifles, but those are not exclusive to assault rifles, as those features are shared with many submachine guns, battle rifles, automatic rifles and machine guns:

Protruding pistol grip.

Folding, retractable or otherwise collapsible shoulder stock.

Bipod

Muzzle device like a muzzle brake or a flash suppressor.

There are commentators who use the expression “assault rifle” more loosely to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or civilian semi-automatic off-shoots of military rifles for commercial or political reasons. Some militaries of nations outside of the English-speaking world also have a different definition of assault rifle. For instance, the analogous term in the Swedish Armed Forces is automatkarbin (literally "automatic carbine") which includes both assault rifles and battle rifles.

Someone needs to get a box of 64 Crayola's. If it's anything, it's Fuschia. If you want to be one of the girls, you are going to HAVE to get your colors right! :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seemed like more of a pale mauve to me.

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x265/bigmike065/zrifle.jpg

 

So I'm a GUN guy myself... I have 15 Guns.... My Question to RTS and the other My Rights are being taken away...

 

You Actually need an Assault Rifle for Target Practice, Hunting, and /or Self Defense????

 

What are you defending yourselfs against an ARMY???

You all on the gun crazy side seem to realize that you're argument doesn't hold water. Thats why you keep splitting hairs, and asking for more specifics. The "how thick of steel?" line cracked me up! :lol:

 

If a bear is chasing me in the woods, I need not know, the genus and species. I know to run. Same thing with over-kill weapons and ammo. Simple as that.

 

 

You are neglecting to address anything else I mentioned.

 

Stainless Steel Pot, should we make sure a bullet cannot penetrate it? You are blatantly ignoring everything else I said.