People that know nothing about assault weapons

[fpritchett64 0]

So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban assault weapons know nothing about them. In other words, don't even know what they're talking about. Here is an example from former D.C. Police Chief/now police commissioner: Mr. Ramsey. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

"Ramsey, the former police chief of Washington, D.C., also discussed the details of 10 assault weapons displayed at the event, similar to those used in some of the most recent mass shootings.

“If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up, because I don’t know what else will,” Ramsey told the crowd. “We have to pass legislation, we can’t allow the legislation to get so watered down and filled with loopholes that it is meaningless and won’t do anything.”

Then, turning to the weapons, Ramsey said: “Look at this and tell me why any of this needs to be on the streets of our cities. … How are you going to go hunting with something like that? If you kill something, there's nothing left to eat.”

When we think of assault weapons, the first thing that comes to mind is the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered by many to be too weak for whitetail deer, however is perfect for small to medium sized varmints. So, how in the hell would nothing be left when you kill something with it.

Classic example of someone who knows nothing about guns, trying to place a control on them. I would imagine the majority of the people who regularly post against assault rifles in here would fit that category

One last thing, if you want to argue that the larger assault rifles are what he is talking about then here ya to: the other common caliber would be the .30 ie: 308, 7.62, 30-06. All of which are very common hunting calibers. So, again how is that too much for hunting? The fact that it is an assault rifle makes it no more powerful than if it were a Remington 750. Assault rifles don't have turbo chargers making the bullet more dangerous.

[quade 3]

Yes. My God! You're absolutely right!

The former DC Police Chief doesn't know what a gun is because you've managed to take a quote out of context.

Gimme a break.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,384]

>So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban
>assault weapons know nothing about them.

So Guns and Ammo magazine (the place the term originated) knows nothing about assault weapons? Interesting.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban assault weapons know nothing about them. In other words, don't even know what they're talking about. Here is an example from former D.C. Police Chief/now police commissioner: Mr. Ramsey. Pay particular attention to the last paragraph.

"Ramsey, the former police chief of Washington, D.C., also discussed the details of 10 assault weapons displayed at the event, similar to those used in some of the most recent mass shootings.

“If the slaughter of 20 babies does not capture and hold your attention, then I give up, because I don’t know what else will,” Ramsey told the crowd. “We have to pass legislation, we can’t allow the legislation to get so watered down and filled with loopholes that it is meaningless and won’t do anything.”

Then, turning to the weapons, Ramsey said: “Look at this and tell me why any of this needs to be on the streets of our cities. … How are you going to go hunting with something like that? If you kill something, there's nothing left to eat.”

When we think of assault weapons, the first thing that comes to mind is the AR-15 which fires. .223/5.56mm bullet. This particular caliber also known as a .22 caliber is considered by many to be too weak for whitetail deer, however is perfect for small to medium sized varmints. So, how in the hell would nothing be left when you kill something with it.

Classic example of someone who knows nothing about guns, trying to place a control on them. I would imagine the majority of the people who regularly post against assault rifles in here would fit that category

One last thing, if you want to argue that the larger assault rifles are what he is talking about then here ya to: the other common caliber would be the .30 ie: 308, 7.62, 30-06. All of which are very common hunting calibers. So, again how is that too much for hunting? The fact that it is an assault rifle makes it no more powerful than if it were a Remington 750. Assault rifles don't have turbo chargers making the bullet more dangerous.

Its not nice to call little children varmits.

Lets keep it classy.

[blueblur 0]

If you unload all 30 rds into a deer, sure, he's right, there'd be nothing left. But that would in turn scare off everything in at least a mile radius, so your hopes of getting a second kill are pretty much done.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Yes. My God! You're absolutely right!

The former DC Police Chief doesn't know what a gun is because you've managed to take a quote out of context.

Gimme a break.

How are you going to go hunting with something like that? If you kill something, there's nothing left to eat.”

How do you comprehend that sentence?

As far as being a former police chief? I know from experience that being in law enforcement does not make you an expert with firearms.

What experience do you have with firearms?

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

>So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban
>assault weapons know nothing about them.

So Guns and Ammo magazine (the place the term originated) knows nothing about assault weapons? Interesting.

What is an assault rifle? Seriously? Different groups seem to have different definitions. So ya know, AR as in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite.

[fpritchett64 0]

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

[quade 3]

Quote

What experience do you have with firearms?

Enough to know that no matter how much it is, a rabid voice on the internet will claim it's not enough.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bignugget 0]

An assault rifle, is a rifle that is used to assault things.

did I get it right?

I don't see why people are worried if a certain gun would be able to kill a deer or not....

I didn't know we had a Syrian level of deer murders going on, why the hell isn't the news talking about this?

Also while we are on the topic of deer, how well would you guys say a deer of quality huntable status compares to lets say; a 7 year old human, a 20 year old human, and a 80 year old human, when it comes to overall ability to survive a shot from a gun (of any kind) to the chest?

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Quote

What experience do you have with firearms?

Enough to know that no matter how much it is, a rabid voice on the internet will claim it's not enough.

I'm proud of you, Quade. You're admitting that you don't have enough experience with firearms. That's a start.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

I think you missed the point.

That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list.

Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid.

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

An assault rifle, is a rifle that is used to assault things.

did I get it right?

Then I guess you could consider a hammer an assault rifle as well let's ban all hammers too.

I don't see why people are worried if a certain gun would be able to kill a deer or not....

Thats not the point, it was merely an example that you people have no clue about firearms but are confident that assault rifles need to be banned because of a recent shooting. A recent shooting in which we're not even sure whether an assault rifle was used.

I didn't know we had a Syrian level of deer murders going on, why the hell isn't the news talking about this?

Also while we are on the topic of deer, how well would you guys say a deer of quality huntable status compares to lets say; a 7 year old human, a 20 year old human, and a 80 year old human, when it comes to overall ability to survive a shot from a gun (of any kind) to the chest?

You can kill a deer with a pellet rifle with a well placed shot. Doesnt make it ethical because the risks are too high of wounding the animal and making it suffer. Again, the point isn't about deer. It was about the fact that the people wanting to ban these guns know nothing about them.

[Bignugget 0]

What do I need to know besides they can kill people quickly and efficiently?

Once I know these other things, then is it ok for me to not want 270 million guns on the streets?

ETA: Im not in favor of banning some small portion of guns.

Im in favor of EXTREMELY limited ability to acquire any sort of firearm. Id like to see it go the way of like....vetting out a supreme court justice, or a secret service agent, in order to get a license for a gun.

I would also like to see penalties stiffened and manufacture of firearms in the US to stop.

I agree with you 100% banning one small section of the pie won't help much if at all.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

Rugrats?

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

I think you missed the point.

That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list.

Any gun can be used quite effectively to kill a grown adult, the AR-15 is no more lethal than Remington 750 rifle chambered in .223. What is the difference in the two? One is made of synthetic materials and looks cool.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind the gun. I have absolutely no problem with making it more difficult for ALL guns to get into the hands of the wrong person.

Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

>So, I have come to the conclusion that the large majority of people trying to ban
>assault weapons know nothing about them.

So Guns and Ammo magazine (the place the term originated) knows nothing about assault weapons? Interesting.

No.

The term "assault weapon" was coined by Josh Sugarman as a political tool to gain more support for gun control.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

Legally the distinction between "assault weapon" and "not" is about cosmetics and small things that annoy people who want to use the guns for recreation which are either irrelevant for those bent on mayhem (there aren't many drive-by bayonettings) or readily worked around.

For instance, some one with a California legal AR15 incorporating a soldered or pinned and welded muzzle brake would need to invest in a second upper half to use it for high power and 3-gun instead of just unscrewing it.

Here are a few pictures illustrating the differences between "assault weapon" and "not" under California law.

first: not. The magazine can't be dropped with your right index finger and since it no longer accepts a detachable magazine under the law's definition it's not an "assault weapon"

second: not. Goofy ergonomics were applied in place of the pistol grip so it retains no features from the list that would classify it as an "assault weapon"

third: not. No evil features. Less attractive than an AR15 because it has double the price tag, more recoil, and is more expensive to shoot because the bullets have twice the metal with corresponding increases in powder charge and case capacity.

fourth: "assault weapon" because it's on a list of names that make it one, even if assembled into an otherwise legal configuration.

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

What do I need to know besides they can kill people quickly and efficiently?

Once I know these other things, then is it ok for me to not want 270 million guns on the streets?

ETA: Im not in favor of banning some small portion of guns.

Im in favor of EXTREMELY limited ability to acquire any sort of firearm. Id like to see it go the way of like....vetting out a supreme court justice, or a secret service agent, in order to get a license for a gun.

I would also like to see penalties stiffened and manufacture of firearms in the US to stop.

Sometimes at night when I decide to go out to eat, I don't want to hear loud, live music so I decide to go to a restaurant that doesn't have it. Here in the U.S. we have the RIGHT to bear arms. I think Mexico may have the gun control laws you're looking for. Let me know how that works out for you

I agree with you 100% banning one small section of the pie won't help much if at all.

Heroin, ecstacy, crack... All controlled substances. Only the criminals possess the stuff. Take away our right to firearms and you'll have the same thing. Is that what you want?

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

I think you missed the point.

That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list.

Any gun can be used quite effectively to kill a grown adult, the AR-15 is no more lethal than Remington 750 rifle chambered in .223. What is the difference in the two? One is made of synthetic materials and looks cool.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind the gun. I have absolutely no problem with making it more difficult for ALL guns to get into the hands of the wrong person.

Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid.

That's what im talkin about!

Step 1

Reduce levels from highest in world, to second highest in world.

Achieve this by stopping all manufacturing of firearms in the USA. Then offer a buyback of public firearms at some determined market value. Stiffen penalties for unlicensed firearms, and strip away all existing licenses. Those who wish to be legal can reapply and hope to get their guns licensed, those who want to become felons can roll the dice. As guns come into the LEO system, they are removed.

We are on our way after that Im pretty sure.

Id bet money we get down to 2nd highest in the world.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Heroin, ecstacy, crack... All controlled substances. Only the criminals possess the stuff. Take away our right to firearms and you'll have the same thing. Is that what you want?

Yes. This is what I want except LEO will have guns as well. (and licensed people who pass the secret service/supreme justice style vetting)

They don't (i hope) have lots of ecstasy and crack....

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Then why are you calling little children varmints?

Either you have absolutely no sense and just further proved my theory or you're just trying too hard to be funny. Btw, that wasn't funny and completely immature to make all of those innocent children the butt of your joke.

Just to be clear, varmints: coyotes, bobcats, prairie dogs, rats..

I think you missed the point.

That gun can also be used, quite effectively, to kill people....including small children. Add that to your list.

Any gun can be used quite effectively to kill a grown adult, the AR-15 is no more lethal than Remington 750 rifle chambered in .223. What is the difference in the two? One is made of synthetic materials and looks cool.

The problem isn't the gun, it's the person behind the gun. I have absolutely no problem with making it more difficult for ALL guns to get into the hands of the wrong person.

Maybe it cant stop the full grown deer....but it has no problem destroying a 7 year old kid.

That's what im talkin about!

Step 1

Reduce levels from highest in world, to second highest in world.

Achieve this by stopping all manufacturing of firearms in the USA. Then offer a buyback of public firearms at some determined market value. Stiffen penalties for unlicensed firearms, and strip away all existing licenses. Those who wish to be legal can reapply and hope to get their guns licensed, those who want to become felons can roll the dice. As guns come into the LEO system, they are removed.

We are on our way after that Im pretty sure.

Id bet money we get down to 2nd highest in the world.

While you're at it, are you ok with taking away your right to warrant less searches and seizures?

[Bignugget 0]

No, the guns will be collected as they come into public light.

There is no reason to go banging in grandmas door searching for guns.

I don't think most people who consider themselves "law abiding" would willingly risk life in prison if they were caught with an unlicensed gun.

For the same reason most people don't possess heroin now.

The penalty and risk is too high.

Lets do the same for guns.

Lets make it so MOST people don't have guns.

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

Quote

Heroin, ecstacy, crack... All controlled substances. Only the criminals possess the stuff. Take away our right to firearms and you'll have the same thing. Is that what you want?

Yes. This is what I want except LEO will have guns as well. (and licensed people who pass the secret service/supreme justice style vetting)

So did you just admit that you only want Leo's and criminals to have possession of the firearms?

They don't (i hope) have lots of ecstasy and crack....

Not for personal use or sale at least.

[fpritchett64 0]

Quote

No, the guns will be collected as they come into public light.

There is no reason to go banging in grandmas door searching for guns.

I don't think most people who consider themselves "law abiding" would willingly risk life in prison if they were caught with an unlicensed gun.

For the same reason most people don't possess heroin now.

The penalty and risk is too high.

Lets do the same for guns.

Lets make it so MOST people don't have guns.

That's not what I meant about warrant less searches and seizures. I meant if you're removing the right to keep and bear arms, why not remove some more rights while we're at it? I mean after all, it would make Leo's jobs much easier on the war against drugs. Another problem we seem to face. Which is also one of the biggest reasons for violent crimes.

[Bignugget 0]

Yes.....

I want LEO, "criminals" (someone who has an unlicensed firearm), and licensed individuals who pass a secret service style vetting process, to have guns.

That is what I "admitted".

That is what I want.

Of course I want to try to collect and put in prison the criminals....but yea, those are the ones who should have guns.