.

Ignorance of picking on "assault rifles"

ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
I am amazed at the outright stupidity of the anti's
I mean by definition an assault rifle is designed for targets from 0-400 meters. Do these nitwits not realize that the vast plethora of "powerful,monstrous,killing machines" etc.etc. are not very accurate past 350 meters? The most effective force on the battlefield,short of WMD, is a sniper and spotter?

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    please don't tell that to the left-wing, liberal, anti-gun crowd or they will try and outlaw snipers and spotters. (he he)

    Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I know. They don't really care about the range. They just think that the assault rifles look more military and it would be easier to convince the people that they aren't necessary. As for me... well like I said before, I want to get a preban registered MP5K-PDW full auto. Too bad about the $13,000 price though. Saving up every penny I can.
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I just sold a post ban Bushmaster m-4 to buy a suppressor....Lots of hoops to jump through just to save your hearing if you ask me. I am placing the order this Monday and I can expect it by August !!!!! I have to ask myself, why does an honest citizen have to pay sooo much money,go through a helluva lotta hassle, and allow the feds to "stop by anytime they choose" to verify my cans location and storage condition,when a criminal can get one cheaper,quicker AND easier??? I can figure why they think people with honest intentions are such a threat..How many criminals will do all this crap?? Obvious answer there ain't it? Any opinions on that??
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The answer to your question is simple.

    The men of America are afraid to stand up and demand their rights.

    They allow themselves to cowed by Socialists that control all the legislatures..and they arn't smart enough to even ask the question "Why should I have to.."....

    So you find yourself in a VERY small minority..those who dare question "Authority"...
  • NOTPARSNOTPARS Member Posts: 2,081 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Do you all think the sun-setting of the semi-auto and magazine ban bill will come up as an issue in the presidential campaign? If it does, it would be around September, unless Congress decides to jaw on this one until after the election. I know where Kerry stands and Bush has me worried too.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    I have nothing of substance to base this on, but I am hoping Bush is playing a common management game regarding the experation of the so-called assualt weapons ban (scawb). His public posture is that he will renew it, and by taking this stand, he picks up support from the anti-gun Republicians. But in reality he just might "accidently" cause or let something happen in that the ban "accidently" or "out of his control" does sunset. In which case he would still have much of the good will from the anti-gunners but would also regain support from the pro-gunners.

    Kind of like a parent avoiding a lot of argument about letting the kids go watch a particular offensive movie at the theatre by creating a diversion until it is too late to go to that movie. JMHO.

    Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I completely agree with you tr.. Bush had the sack to go after Bin Laden and Saddam...But he has dodged the gun thing and apparently thinks illegals deserve amnesty..That last one really rubs me wrong.[V]
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    ArmaliteA4 Posted - 02/21/2004 : 09:27:56 AM
    quote:Bush had the sack to go after Bin Laden and Saddam...But he has dodged the gun thing and apparently thinks illegals deserve amnesty..
    Ordering young man into battle..equates into courage ?

    Let me explain my idea of courage.A President looking into the TV cameras saying..." 20,000 gun laws on the books are un- Constitutional..and my presidency will work to end them.Unwarrented intrusions into Citizens daily life end today.I pledge to you that I will work EVERY DAY to restore a Constitutional America..and pursuant to this,The BATF is abolished.All Government agents will be investigated to the fullest extent possible..and ANY TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE LAW will be punished..Harshly.

    We are going to have a better America by having an honest,accountable Government..and it starts RIGHT NOW."

    This of course only scratches the surface of needed reforms..but no,Courage will not be found in Political Life,2004...or 05,or 06,or..
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    highball...my point was, had you read it and thought about it some, agreed with you. He had the sack to go after military targets but does NOT have the sack to take on very HOT political topics. I don't think you need to hip shoot me , we are on the same page on most things. I would like to see the day someone comes into office and sweep the floor with the systems cronies..I think we are both smart enough to realize this will never happen. A person who was willing,if they were lucky enough to actually get elected, would find them self embroiled in gridlock and and probably a very nasty scandal. As far as the revolutionary theories, I myself work out 5 days a week, split trainig,and have damn physical job. But most of the people who claim to wanna fight a tyranical system could't pack a ruck properly, let alone shoot move and communicate. It would take timing and communication countrywide to fight something that big and win. We, in this room, can't agree on opinions quite a bit. Opinions that were formed in a warm room with a full belly. Probably had a full nights sleep. There is very little chance people could agree on a "modus operandi" to be revolutionary. My point is, a person alone, is only fractionally effective. A large,disorganized,under equipped force can be effective,but only proportionally effective.This system would win today if something happened similiar to the Revolutionary war of old.If fought in a similiar matter in regards to the Continental army. I too am a student of "The art of war"
    I think most people who are interested in militaria should digest that book periodically. [:D]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Some thoughtful and insightful comments there Armalite. We need more people who see as clearly as you do.

    Quote "When guns were invented everything changed. For the first time in the history of the world a frail woman had a chance to sucessfully defend herself and home. My dream is that one of the anti-gun nuts will need a gun for defense and be unable to have one because of their own actions."
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    ArmaliteA4;

    Not sniping you..really.[:D]

    But being a simple man..I like things stated plainly...VERY plainly.

    I have been reading your posts..and welcome aboard.

    Using your posts to make a point..please don't take offense at it.[;)]

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • Red223Red223 Member Posts: 7,946
    edited November -1
    Yep ole Bill Ruger would be mad since they have their sites on his Mini-14's and 30's.

    Too bad he was the biggest preacher and pusher for the ban in the first place saying in Congress that no man needs a magazine over 10 rounds.

    I think the gun ban will be secretly added to some other Bill very soon in Congress to get sneaked by.







    kabalogoshadowed.gif
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks highball......I am looking forward to sharing ideas and thoughts with you guys.Very interesting angles here and there I have found.[^]
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    tr...thanks to you also. I see the general pulse in here,regarding the NRA, is kinda hostile.Except for you and I that is. I am kinda surprised that so many of "us" have such disdain for the NRA.I think ths is going to be interesting...lol
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This pathetic ban is not going to be "slipped in" and passed. Too many people are watching with intent. There will be no time to let the aggressive feelings of people like us subside, and I will go against party lines to vote them out, as a matter of reshuffling the deck and greasing the wheels in the meantime.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    ArmaliteA4;
    quote:I see the general pulse in here,regarding the NRA, is kinda hostile. ..............I am kinda surprised that so many of "us" have such disdain for the NRA.

    I so desperately wish to support the NRA..I really do.

    But those that support gun control DO have my hostility..and I cannot have a friend that actively promotes control.Just not in my nature to coddle someone working to decrease my natural rights.

    God,Guts,& GunsHave we lost all 3 ??
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    ArmaliteA4;
    quote:I see the general pulse in here,regarding the NRA, is kinda hostile. ..............I am kinda surprised that so many of "us" have such disdain for the NRA.

    I so desperately wish to support the NRA..I really do.

    But those that support gun control DO have my hostility..and I cannot have a friend that actively promotes control.Just not in my nature to coddle someone working to decrease my natural rights.

    God,Guts,& Guns<BR>Have we lost all 3 ??<BR>


    HEAR<HEAR!!!!!!I Hear you and agree Highball! L.H.
  • cussedemguncussedemgun Member Posts: 985 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    ArmaliteA4, et-all;
    you miss the main point. you are listening to what the anti-s say and not seeing what they really mean. the ban on full autos and sawed off shotguns was lobbied and inacted because it was needed to control organized crime (real gangsters during proabition). that law is the main reason our gov. got away with murder at Ruby Ridge & Waco. the anti-s are learning from history and expanding on it. they pass a law that can be used to their advantage by literal translation later. what is to say that an assault rifle is not one that might be usedin an assault? case in point; the indangered species act was meant to protect birds, critters, etc., not as a logging ban. once it was on the books any liberal judge used it as he saw fit. wah-lah the anti-s now have a tool. they are trying to expand this same system to guns.
    ANY LAW THAT IS A BAN IS A BAD LAW-IT IS A LOSS OF OUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE. we have not even banned murder! sometimes it is allright if we call it CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, ABORTION, EUTHANASIA, or SELF DEFENSE. point being, educated society needs rules, not bans!
    Jim

    "all I really need to know I learned in kindergarten" Robert Fulghum


    anyone who says "nobody needs a full auto" has never been in front of a brown bear charge
  • 2gun2gun Member Posts: 318 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    when you ban something very broadly such as military type assualt rifles and say that you will allow anyone who has a legitimate need for it to be exempted, you are setting the stage for limiting the needs that will be allowed. it also allows the inclusion of other military type rifles which dont quite meet the criteria that was originally established by being overly broad.

    this is a pattern that has been clearly established everywhere they have baned guns, england being the best example. they just kept adding more bad gunsto the list to make people sfer. of course people not only werent safer but crime got worse, the answer was always in the interest of public safety to ban more items.

    the banner here are aving a case of the jitters because we may actually end up moving in the opposite direction because of the sunset clause. if they get a permanent ban like exists in certain states, we will see a continual banning of assorted new items under the reinterpretation of unneeded military type weapons as opposed to sporting weapons. strangely(or not)the guys deciding whether a weapon is sporting or not usually have no interest concept of sport or skill with firearms. it is for this reason that the BOLT ACTION .50 cal rifles are able to be banned in areas that simply reinterpret the ban on military type weapons that were accused of being able to dump large amounts of ammo downrange quickly. a large very expensive bolt action certainly cant do that but is now facing bans using the broad description.

    the problem is compounded because the same guys that want to interpret a .50 cal as being too big and only useful for military purposes are at the same time trying to ban samll calibers as being to small and only capable of use as a hideaway peice. so whats wrong with that? favored choice of criminals comes the reply from the folks that have never even fieldstripped a gun.

    therein lies the truth, the guys and gals that want a permanent ban are not looking to make america safer, they cant and they know it,their objective is to put a permanent reasonable sounding ban in place with broad langauge to allow additional types and classes of weapons or cartridges to be considered as nonsporting and banned(perhaps not from current ownership but from further production)amd make the sale and transfer contingent on their approval. as well they will continue to cut down on what would be a legitimate reason to own a gun in the first place effectively eliminating a first time buyer because of the hoops he/she would have to jump through. the less people able to legitimately buy, the more the argument can be made that someone not willing to comply with all the rules must be looking to engage in criminal behaviour. also the less of a constituency that will object to further restrictions.

    i lived in nyc where this has been accomplished quite well.not as well as they have done in the rest of civilized europe but we are on our way. for a while they had a permit sytem where they would ony allow a premises permit holder to take a gun to the range 2 days a month and that was it. a target permit would allow you to take your gun out to a range whenever but rstricted you from keeping it loaded in your home. you either had someone who couldnt hit the side of a barn or you had to prove you loaded your gun after the perp was a threat.fortunaetly they now have a combination only(i wont explain the politics of it)but a carry permit is only available if you are closely related to someone important and already warrant police escorts if you want.i think the un would approve.

    the reason why we must fight any attempt to place a permanent ban is because we will never have a seat at the table in determining what is sensible and what is not. it will always be some politicians that has more to gain by pandering to the antis.as it is we fight an uphill battle all the time with state legislatures always getting a few anti bills on thier desk that if they pass we lose more rights that we cant get back. fortunately there has been a lot of progress in many states allowing the right to carry and it has resulted in a safer society. so we must keep up the fight and know that the gun banners are not stupid, they have a plan and if we look at englands crime stats or australias law against swords we know where they want to go.
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Very well said....And I agree completely,they definately DO have a plan. They will win in the end ,if the apathetic gun owners out there continue to do nothing. We must draw a line somewhere or just get used to the idea of going backwards regarding ownership. [V]
  • longhunterlonghunter Member Posts: 3,242
    edited November -1
    They ARE winning,see my new post.........[:(!][V][V][V]
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't be so sure about that, LH. The Senate failed to get the extension thrown in with the LCiAA S.659. I wish they would have passed it, so the House could send it back, stripped of its parasites. Once the sunset occurs, there will be nothing to insert into, and that is what Bush is counting on. It will never reach his desk, so he can say he did the best he could, but the people have spoken.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And quit calling them "Assault" Rifles!!!

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
  • ArmaliteA4ArmaliteA4 Member Posts: 489 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    They ARE assault rifles...........It is irrelevant of trigger configuration in the big picture. The true definition of an assault rifle fit the criteria of any of currently available assault rifles on the market. Although the media tries to fog the average joe into thinking a military, select fire assault rifle is exactly the same thing we can buy from an ffl. We realize the difference between the 2, but alot of people don't.[;)]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    We need every bit of help we can get. If naming my guns a kinder, gentler name to make it harder for the anti-gun groups to pass laws takening them away, it is a cheap and easy action which I am glad to take.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • ozwynozwyn Member Posts: 189 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    does that mean i could rename my old bushmaster into a "personal entertainment carbine" to skip around the legal labels?

    sorry... just felt the urge to be a [email protected]
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, you're telling me the only reason why people buy these things is to assault people?

    By its own definition, why would someone buy a thing called an "assault" rifle?

    Who cares what they are defined as in an unconstitutional law? They are rifles, that much is correct. These things were designed by civilians for civilians, not for soldiers. That came later.

    Part of the reason we were inflicted with an arms ban was because of its deceptive wording. Just because we see through the lie doesn't mean everyone has the same sense.

    Death to Tyrants!!!
    Lev 26:14-39

    Remember how many seats were lost after AWB passage? Vae victis!
    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.

    Luke 22:36.
Sign In or Register to comment.