T1B

T.R.O.T.S.

Waiting for the liberal melt in 3....2....1....

I'm not a hunter nor am I a gun enthusiast. But I'll give it a "shot".

KC Scott wrote:Look at this picture and tell me which one(s) are assault weapons and why:

Can shotguns be considered as assault weapons? I've seen "Gunny" fire some kind of bad-ass military Gatling-type shotty on his show, but I wasn't aware that you could empty a shotgun by simply pulling the trigger. I was under the impression that shotguns required some kind of pump action to chamber a shell. I suppose the bottom one featuring a protruding grip beneath the 'action" might meet some political definition of assault weapon, but I don't know.

Now look at these two pictures and tell me which is for hunting?

Er, both? Or is that bolt on the side of both guns there for decoration?

Finally - here's 2 more - this time small caliber. Which one is the assault rifle?

Unless they have full-automatic capability, none of them may be classified as an assault rifle.

I suppose the bottom one featuring a protruding grip beneath the 'action" might meet some political definition of assault weapon, but I don't know.

And the fact it is semi automatic. Those would be the liberals only qualifiers for the assault designation.

Unless they have full-automatic capability, none of them may be classified as an assault rifle.

Again a correct statement that liberals will dispute. Assault rifles are select fire. Meaning either semi automatic fire ( one trigger pull, one round fired) versus full automatic fire ( pull trigger, constant firing until ammo is gone).

Lets not let words get in the way of political hype.

KC Scott wrote: Look at this picture and tell me which one(s) are assault weapons and why

first photo, only the bottom gun because it has a pistol grip...who needs a pistol grip on a shotgun?
not sure the shell capacity but if any of those weapons have detachable magazines that carry more than five shots, that would probably be considered an assault weapon

second image the Remington SPS would be considered an assault weapon, primarily because it has a threaded barrel which allows for adding a flash suppressor or barrel extender...

of the last two, the guns are essentially the same except the pistol grip, folding stock, and higher capacity magazine on the bottom one..that would kick it into the assault weapons class....

Felix wrote:
first photo, only the bottom gun because it has a pistol grip...who needs a pistol grip on a shotgun?
not sure the shell capacity but if any of those weapons have detachable magazines that carry more than five shots, that would probably be considered an assault weapon

How does a pistol grip affect the rate or style of fire ? And your complete ignorance is showing through. " Yep...IF any of those weapons has detachable magazines, they must be an assault weapon. " None of them have detachable magazines you fucking idiot, therefore they are not assault weapons. And several of them can hold more than 5 rounds. That makes them an assault weapon ?

Love it how you say, " Not sure if", but then you go ahead and make the call ....Yep..fucking A... ASSAULT WEAPONS !!!!"

second image the Remington SPS would be considered an assault weapon, primarily because it has a threaded barrel which allows for adding a flash suppressor or barrel extender...

Half an hour in a machine shop gets me a threaded barrel on the wood stock gun. And what the fuck is a barrel extender? Again, rate and type of fire have nothing to do with it ?

of the last two, the guns are essentially the same except the pistol grip, folding stock, and higher capacity magazine on the bottom one..that would kick it into the assault weapons class....

So $ 12.97 gets you an extended magazine to fit in the top gun.



So again, rate and type of fire have nothing to do with the classification of the weapon ? Just the fact it has a "pistol" grip, folding stock, and magazine classify it has an "assault" weapon ?

I'm guessing any military vet, law enforcement person , or hunter understands that the rhetoric being bandied about by the left is just that. The NRA is correct in its position. It's ironic that a similar program was instituted by the Clinton administration which funded police presence in schools for three years. The slaughter at Newtown could have been stopped or at least radically reduced had there been armed responsible adults in that building.

Derron wrote:Waiting for the liberal melt in 3....2....1....

The only one "melting" here is you, Derron.

Wolfman wrote:I'm guessing any military vet, law enforcement person , or hunter understands that the rhetoric being bandied about by the left is just that. The NRA is correct in its position. It's ironic that a similar program was instituted by the Clinton administration which funded police presence in schools for three years. The slaughter at Newtown could have been stopped or at least radically reduced had there been armed responsible adults in that building.

You mean like at Columbine?

What about it? The armed officer was on his lunch break, possibly a factor in the shooter's plans. He did influence the outcome and it would have been worse if he was not there at all. Maybe we need a law to have the armed responsible adult eat lunch in the school.

The "I support hunters" group is the one I loathe, because they are simply political hypocrite shitstains. The "ban all guns" crowd are idiots, but, at least they are principled.

smackaholic wrote:The "I support hunters" group is the one I loathe, because they are simply political hypocrite shitstains. The "ban all guns" crowd are idiots, but, at least they are principled.

Why, because you're too intellectually limited to understand anything more complicated than "all or nothing"?

KC Scott wrote:Tru -

I didn't know you were in favor of the assault weapons ban?

if you're not then why did you reply?

This thread was for the Tards like m2 and LTS who wouldn't know the difference between an assault weapon and a super soaker

Er, because I'm at work; it's slow; I kinda enjoy taking the little quizzes posted here; and I apparently only read the second half of your topic's question?

Truth told, I get a kick out of the hand-wringers that want to ban "scary-looking" guns. The "assault" categorization is used as a political code word.

As I implied in my earlier post, I don't know shit about guns. I've fired them; they're fun. Should I ever decide that I would like to own a firearm, I'd gladly submit to the process of legally obtaining one, as well as the training necessary to responsibly own one. And I have absolutely no desire to limit or restrict you or anybody else's Constitutional right to own one - or a hundred - either.

And to take it a step further, I don't particularly have an issue with certain individuals - properly trained, vetted, and certified of course - owning fully-automatic weapons. Why? Because law-abiding citizens in our country do not attack schools, churches, government offices, and shopping malls. Murderers and terrorists do.

I talked to a small-county sheriff's deputy years ago on the topic of automatic weapons. When I suggested that an out-right ban of them in the hands of private citizens was probably not such a bad idea, he looked at me as if I had just kicked his dog. "You believe in letting the government limit your rights? How many other rights are you willing to give back to 'em? And while we're at it, how many Casey's do think would get robbed in this county if the crooks thought that there was a chance a fully-loaded AK was under the counter?" Got to admit, he changed my thinking on the subject...

Truman wrote:


I talked to a small-county sheriff's deputy years ago on the topic of automatic weapons. When I suggested that an out-right ban of them in the hands of private citizens was probably not such a bad idea, he looked at me as if I had just kicked his dog. "You believe in letting the government limit your rights? How many other rights are you willing to give back to 'em? And while we're at it, how many Casey's do think would get robbed in this county if the crooks thought that there was a chance a fully-loaded AK was under the counter?" Got to admit, he changed my thinking on the subject...

Automatic or semi automatic ?

A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

An automatic firearm is a firearm that will continue to fire so long as the trigger is pressed and there is ammunition in the magazine. While both "semi automatic" and "fully automatic" weapons are "automatic" in technical sense that the firearm automatically cycles between rounds with each trigger pull, under conventional usage a merely semi-automatic firearm is not correctly referred to an "automatic weapon" or an "automatic firearm". The terms "automatic weapon" and "automatic firearm" are conventionally reserved to describe fully automatic firearms. Confusion can be avoided by this convention.

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

Automatic or full auto weapons are very restricted in who can own them and under what conditions. Pretty sure the deputy was referring to full auto weapons, and not semi automatic weapons. Full auto really don't belong in the general population use.

Fully auto, Der. We were discussing M-16s and their capabilities. Or at least he was discussing - I was listening.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Truman wrote: law-abiding citizens in our country do not attack schools, churches, government offices, and shopping malls. Murderers and terrorists do.

You left out cowards.

Huh? Try making sense some day if you're able.

Here are a couple I had experience with. Any weapon that can be used in war I guess is scary.
Loved the M-1 Garand for long distance, 8 shot clip 30-06 and only semi-automatic, but could hit a target at 600 meters.


For those desperate times, these guys foot the bill, 30 round magazine of .45 caliber, accuracy not needed. Probably not
for sale in operational condition.

Sudden Sam wrote:Murderers, terrorists and cowards attack schools and malls.

Clear enough now?

No. I couldn't care less about cowards. It's a free country. Be a coward till you're yellow in the face.

Wolfman wrote:Here are a couple I had experience with. Any weapon that can be used in war I guess is scary.
Loved the M-1 Garand for long distance, 8 shot clip 30-06 and only semi-automatic, but could hit a target at 600 meters.


For those desperate times, these guys foot the bill, 30 round magazine of .45 caliber, accuracy not needed. Probably not
for sale in operational condition.

operational grease guns are definitely not for sale unless you are one of the very few that is licensed to own full auto weapons.

that garand was cool. wonder how many folks have had their tickets punched by one?

smackaholic wrote: that garand was cool. wonder how many folks have had their tickets punched by one?

These guys like them. My son is 5th from the left. He even bought one when he got out.

Rack your son Derron.

Wolfman wrote:Rack your son Derron.

'
Thanks Wolfie..he is a pretty good kid. 4 years in the Corps, combat tour in Iraq, college degree, owns 3 houses and works at Intel now. He is doing pretty good. A true patriot too.

Derron wrote:Yep...IF any of those weapons has detachable magazines, they must be an assault weapon. " None of them have detachable magazines you fucking idiot, therefore they are not assault weapons. And several of them can hold more than 5 rounds. That makes them an assault weapon ?

why are you getting all bent out of shape here boss? I offered an opinion on why they might be considered an assault weapon and that's largely based on what the feds say, not me....I'm not in favor of banning guns because at this point it would be useless....

And what the fuck is a barrel extender?

you don't know what a barrel extension is?
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/M4-Barre ... n%20m4.htm

So again, rate and type of fire have nothing to do with the classification of the weapon ? Just the fact it has a "pistol" grip, folding stock, and magazine classify it has an "assault" weapon ?

any gun that can utilize high capacity magazines would be considered an assault weapon....what practical purpose does a 20 to 30 round clip serve?

If it holds more than 6 rounds and is semi-automatic its an assault weapon.

Felix wrote:what practical purpose does a 20 to 30 round clip serve?

The same practical purpose that 2 or 3 10 round magazines serve. Kinda of a stupid question if you stop emoting and start thinking.

mvscal wrote:

Felix wrote:what practical purpose does a 20 to 30 round clip serve?

The same practical purpose that 2 or 3 10 round magazines serve. Kinda of a stupid question if you stop emoting and start thinking.

You might as well ask Feeldix to jump over the moon

Rack Derron's fukkin' jarhead! semper fi, oooow rahhh and all that horseshit!

I thought we settled this back in 94 -- it's an assault rifle if it's got the thing that goes up the shoulder.

If you don't get that, Google it for some insight into the idiocy behind this movement.

mvscal wrote:
The same practical purpose that 2 or 3 10 round magazines serve. Kinda of a stupid question if you stop emoting and start thinking.

so what purpose does carrying 2 or 3 10 round magazines have, other than for laying down a lot of shots in a short period of time.....

it's not for self protection, because if you haven't protected yourself within 3 shots, it's likely your not going to live....assault rifles are too cumbersome to be practical self protection weapons....handguns are much better for self defense...it's not for hunting, because no self respecting hunter I know would use what amounts to a .223 caliber rifle to hunt game animals-unless you plan on chasing some deer for about three fucking miles....there are cheaper, far better rifles for hunting....

an AR-15 (like the ones used in the last few massacres) was designed for one purpose, and that's to kill human beings....

anybody that would argue that point is a fucking imbecile, or an NRA shill

Felix wrote:

mvscal wrote:
The same practical purpose that 2 or 3 10 round magazines serve. Kinda of a stupid question if you stop emoting and start thinking.

so what purpose does carrying 2 or 3 10 round magazines have, other than for laying down a lot of shots in a short period of time.....

it's not for self protection, because if you haven't protected yourself within 3 shots, it's likely your not going to live....assault rifles are too cumbersome to be practical self protection weapons....handguns are much better for self defense...it's not for hunting, because no self respecting hunter I know would use what amounts to a .223 caliber rifle to hunt game animals-unless you plan on chasing some deer for about three fucking miles....there are cheaper, far better rifles for hunting....

an AR-15 (like the ones used in the last few massacres) was designed for one purpose, and that's to kill human beings....

anybody that would argue that point is a fucking imbecile, or an NRA shill

So, what exactly is the difference between killing and defending yourself?

A handgun is better for self defense in very close quarters, but, what if you are defending yourself in a situation where you might have the need kill/discourage some fukk that is 50 yds away. And what if none of those first three rounds didn't hit pay dirt?

In addition to being unconstitutional, your argument makes no fukking sense.

As for going into public places to indiscriminately kill folks, a handgun is much better. If you can't figure out why, you are a special kind of stupid.

What is an assault weapon?

Anything with a trigger.

Sincerely,

Dianne, Sarah, Nancy, Sheila, Carolyn, et al

Felix wrote:an AR-15 (like the ones used in the last few massacres)

Link? Bit ill-informed to try to pin all this on one specific weapon, dontcha think, Felix?

Of all the mass killings described here, it appears that an AR-15 was only used in a couple of instances, and that as a complement to other weapons already in the killers’ arsenals. James Holmes used an AR-15 with a 100-round drum in Aurora before that weapon reportedly jammed after firing less than 30 rounds. Most of his “wet-work” was accomplished with a 12 gauge and a Glock-22. Michael McClendon also had one with him (amongst a half-a-dozen other weapons) when he killed 10 people in Geneva, AL, but there was no report on its “effectiveness”.

Want to know where AR-15s were NOT used? Not Sandy Hook. Not Columbine. Not Blacksburg. Not Fort Hood. Hell, one wasn’t even used by that Neo-Nazi L-Tard nut-bag that took out the Sikhs in Oak Creek. The weapons of choice were handguns.

I’m not suggesting AR-15s are not used in crimes. But of the millions of them that have been manufactured, why aren’t more AR-15s predominantly featured in these killing sprees? Could it be that the problem is with the shooters – and not the weapons?

Pretty sure you're mistaken, about Sandy Hook at least.

Wouldn't be the first time, Mikey, but apparently NBC has another take on the subject:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... bcXxPIB-_Y

Seems there are some conflicting reports. The State Medical Examiner says all of the victims were killed with the .223 Bushmaster.

Felix wrote:
so what purpose does carrying 2 or 3 10 round magazines have, other than for laying down a lot of shots in a short period of time.....

OK.

because if you haven't protected yourself within 3 shots, it's likely your not going to live....

So don't bother trying? Is that your "take"? Needless to say, you're simply talking straight out of your ass.

assault rifles are too cumbersome to be practical self protection weapons...

I guess you had better notify every organized military, militia and para-military group on planet earth, you fucking braindead simpleton.

no self respecting hunter I know would use what amounts to a .223 caliber rifle to hunt game animals-

It makes a great varmint rifle, though. And, of course, you can take a deer with a .223. What makes you think something that is so deadly to 180 pound human being can't take a 150 lbs deer? Oh wait, that's right you don't think. You "feel."

an AR-15 was designed for one purpose, and that's to kill human beings....

So? Has the world suddenly run out of people who need to be killed?

88 wrote:

Felix wrote:an AR-15 (like the ones used in the last few massacres) was designed for one purpose, and that's to kill human beings....

anybody that would argue that point is a fucking imbecile, or an NRA shill

Mine was specifically designed for the national rifle match course. It has a two-stage trigger, a match barrel with a twist-rate designed for accuracy at long distances, match sites, a free-floating front hand guard, which prevents deflection of the barrel when in the prone position, and other changes designed to improve its accuracy. Yes, you could kill someone with it. But it wasn't designed for that purpose. In that sense, it is very much like an automobile. If used improperly, it is very dangerous. But if it is used as intended, no one gets hurt and great fun is had by all.

Fucking crazy terrorist. Your number is up now bucko. Admitting you have one is going to get the feds at your door, when Mikey, LTard and all dime you out to the Feds for being a crazy mofo with an "assault" rifle.

That being said, the AR platform is probably one of the best shooting, most accurate, dependable platforms ever produced. Or so I have heard other people say.

88 wrote:

Felix wrote:an AR-15 (like the ones used in the last few massacres) was designed for one purpose, and that's to kill human beings....

anybody that would argue that point is a fucking imbecile, or an NRA shill

Mine was specifically designed for the national rifle match course. It has a two-stage trigger, a match barrel with a twist-rate designed for accuracy at long distances, match sites, a free-floating front hand guard, which prevents deflection of the barrel when in the prone position, and other changes designed to improve its accuracy. Yes, you could kill someone with it. But it wasn't designed for that purpose. In that sense, it is very much like an automobile. If used improperly, it is very dangerous. But if it is used as intended, no one gets hurt and great fun is had by all.

the m-1 garand was originally designed as a military weapon....

Felix wrote:the m-1 garand was originally designed as a military weapon....

So was the Brown Bess. What's your point?

mvscal wrote: So don't bother trying? Is that your "take"? Needless to say, you're simply talking straight out of your ass.

if you haven't wounded or killed somebody intent on doing you harm in 3 shots that's about all the time you're going to have....

I guess you had better notify every organized military, militia and para-military group on planet earth, you fucking braindead simpleton.

I didn't say they weren't effective weapons, but as a self defense weapon for a civilian, they're useless.....

It makes a great varmint rifle, though. And, of course, you can take a deer with a .223. What makes you think something that is so deadly to 180 pound human being can't take a 150 lbs deer?

obviously you're not a hunter because if you were you'd know that unless you execute a kill shot on a deer with something as light as a .223 round, they tend to take off and run.....usually for a couple of miles before the loss of blood finally does them in....but if you want to chase a deer for a couple of miles over mountainous terrain, knock yourself out.....oh don't forget you've got to gut it and quarter the carcass and drag it back over those miles of mountainous terrain you just crossed chasing it down....like I said, no hunters I know would use a gun like that for hunting deer....and I worked in a gun store for 10 years bud-4 years in the blacksmithing shop and 6 years on the sales floor.....I've worked on, shot and sold a wider variety of guns than you've ever been exposed to....

So? Has the world suddenly run out of people who need to be killed?

the AR-15 is a very effective weapon for military use.....

but I'll ask again:

why does a civilian need a gun like an AR-15 with 30 round magazines (or 3 ten round magazines)