assault weapon ban

[ReodDai]

Originally posted by speedracer95v6:
Crime is at it's lowest point ever in the US.

Blldogg, making it fully auto is, I believe, a felony and of course a mandatory prison sentence.
The way people cheaply turn their weapons fully auto(which by the way can be done to any semiauto rifle or pistol) usually shoot a clip at a time.

military "automatic" weapons usually fire 2-3 shots at a time (m16 -3 shot burst i believe, l1a1 2 shot double action). These guns are only "assault weapons" mainly for the size of their clips. It is easy to reload a clip, and banning large ones does nothing to inhibit gun crime if someone is gonna do the crime.

They have semi auto (1 shot) and burst fire (3 shots), for fully automatic you just hold the trigger. Atleast thats how it used to work you may have to keep pressing it on the newer models..

[ September 15, 2004, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: ReodDai ]

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
They have semi auto (1 shot) and burst fire (3 shots), for fully automatic you just hold the trigger. Atleast thats how it used to work you may have to keep pressing it on the newer models..

Thats how it still is for military rifles.

[ September 15, 2004, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: speedy-v6-camaro ]

[RedFrk13]

Originally posted by 12secondv6:
I'm locked and loaded with a super soaker filled with hot sauce!

Who wants some! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/rofl.gif[/img]

I'll bring the wings!

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by speedracer95v6:
Crime is at it's lowest point ever in the US.

Blldogg, making it fully auto is, I believe, a felony and of course a mandatory prison sentence.
The way people cheaply turn their weapons fully auto(which by the way can be done to any semiauto rifle or pistol) usually shoot a clip at a time.

military "automatic" weapons usually fire 2-3 shots at a time (m16 -3 shot burst i believe, l1a1 2 shot double action). These guns are only "assault weapons" mainly for the size of their clips. It is easy to reload a clip, and banning large ones does nothing to inhibit gun crime if someone is gonna do the crime.

They have semi auto (1 shot) and burst fire (3 shots), for fully automatic you just hold the trigger. Atleast thats how it used to work you may have to keep pressing it on the newer models.. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope, The M16A2 rifle fires only in semiauto or 3-round burst. That means that you squeeze the trigger and hold it in burst, you get 3 rounds fired and no more. Release trigger, pull again and hold for 3 more. If you let go before 3 rounds, it stops the movement of the bolt, firing only 1 or 2 rounds. The older M16 and M16A1 fired semiauto or fully automatic, but it was found that troops expended too much ammo in firefights (not good, basic combat load is only 240 rounds of 5.56mm).

[L32Projekt]

Originally posted by C.O.Jones:
he unlocks his center console, takes out his Glock, slides in his "evil" clip (allowed him something like 15 bullets instead of 10 or some crap like that, who cares). He then proceeds to chamber a round, LEAVES THE GUN COCKED WITH THE SAFETY OFF!!! and places the gun back into the console.

Little problem with this story: Glocks do NOT have a manual safety, and will be "cocked" at all times until the trigger is pulled. In fact, it's only "half-cocked", it actually is Pre-Compressed. Pre-compressed means that when the slide was pulled back (or operated during a normal cycle of operations) the striker is somewhat "cocked". The rest of the cocking operation is completed when the trigger is pulled to the rear (since the Glock is a double-action pistol).

To sum it up, to load the Glock pistol, you insert a loaded magazine, pull back the slide assembly and release it, chambering a round. Done. Just don't pull the trigger (the "safety" is the little plastic part that sticks out of the middle of the trigger face). ;)

[camaronat]

I don't understand what the big deal is about the ban running out. It really didn't do anything to stop AW's, because there was ways to get around it. Plus it isn't like we are handing assault weapons to criminals, because there are background checks and stuff in place just like all other guns. Criminals could get AW's during the ban.

Personnally I don't think it will really change anything.

[Ike]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ike:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ReodDai:
I say we should destroy all mechanical and chemical weapons in the world. Kill everyone that knows how to make them and make people fight hand to hand.

But see, that's the point behind guns. They are like an equalizer. No longer does it have to be the "biggest" or best fighter that gets to make the rules. </font>[/QUOTE]Wrong. You just have to adjust the definition of the terms "biggest" and "best fighter". Whoever has the biggest economy with the most funding towards the military gets to make the rules. Nothin changed except the number of people that die in combat. One guy with his hands can't wipe out a village, one guy with a nuclear weapon can wipe out a metropolian area and the majority of the surrounding area. One guy with any kind of "hand to hand" weapon most likely won't be able to slaughter a school of 2000 students, one misunderstood depressive child with the key to his fathers gun closet and a fetish for pipe bombs could.

Look at combat pre and post creation of gunpowder. There is a reason the civil war, WWI, and WWII were the bloodiest wars in history. They all envolved new technology that was more lethal.

You may say "Well yea but the wars now only a couple thousand are killed". Only because there hasn't been a war of the magnitude of the others. Us going after the middle east isn't a war, its a military manuever. It's a joke. Guns are not an equalizer all they do is set one group even further apart from the rest. </font>[/QUOTE]But still, if two people had guns they would attempt to solve their differences diplomaticly rather than with a shoot-out.

This statement of mine does not always scale, true. I will agree with you when it comes to force on force operations with advanced weapons. If every one would just agree to play nice [img]graemlins/love.gif[/img] we wouldn't need any form of defense. With the world the way it is, though; it would be great if nations would spend more on defense than offense. Force fields anyone? [img]graemlins/naughty.gif[/img]

[ReodDai]

Originally posted by Ike:

But still, if two people had guns they would attempt to solve their differences diplomaticly rather than with a shoot-out.

This statement of mine does not always scale, true. I will agree with you when it comes to force on force operations with advanced weapons. If every one would just agree to play nice [img]graemlins/love.gif[/img] we wouldn't need any form of defense. With the world the way it is, though; it would be great if nations would spend more on defense than offense. Force fields anyone? [img]graemlins/naughty.gif[/img]

Actually if two people have guns the first one that shoots wins. There is hardly ever an instant one person doesn't have a major advantage when guns are involved. Now if you hesistate then you die *shrug*.

You want to know the sad thing. The most violent and horrible people in the world are the least deadly people in close combat lol. Every single person I've met that is trained to kill in hand to hand combat is incredibily respectful of others. I've known guys that fight in korea and japan in "no rules" fights. The other guy will snap their arm in half at the elbow and they will still walk up to the guy after the fight and bow and shake hands (with whatever hand they have left). The people who start wars and bull**** are always the "weak little guy" that according to you guns even the field for. You don't see a man with a black belt or extensive martial training go start a freaking war anymore. You see a little nerd that can't talk straight and is supported by his father, and some old hairy guy in the middle of the desert with a fetish for chemical warfare decide they want to have a pissing contest. Hell bin laden is on a dialasis machine. Pull the cord out and walk away. These are the people that start wars now, the weak, the confused, and the pathetic.

[mjparme]

People get all upset when they hear that the assault weapon ban is over. I bet these people don't even know what constitutes an assault weapon. Anytime the news shows a story about the assault weapon ban they show some footage of an AK-47 firing fully automatic.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal and have been for many years (since the 60's i think). You can't buy a fully automatic weapon.

So anyone here that is for the ban on assault weapons, please start out by showing why a so-called assault weapon is more dangerous than any other semiautomatic rifle that is not classified as an assault weapon.

[ellik]

Originally posted by mjparme:
People get all upset when they hear that the assault weapon ban is over. I bet these people don't even know what constitutes an assault weapon. Anytime the news shows a story about the assault weapon ban they show some footage of an AK-47 firing fully automatic.

Fully automatic weapons are illegal and have been for many years (since the 60's i think). You can't buy a fully automatic weapon.

So anyone here that is for the ban on assault weapons, please start out by showing why a so-called assault weapon is more dangerous than any other semiautomatic rifle that is not classified as an assault weapon.

theyve been banned since 1936, I believe.

this is all liberal propoganda used to misguide the masses in the fight to remove our right to bear arms, one step at a time.

[Ike]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ike:

But still, if two people had guns they would attempt to solve their differences diplomaticly rather than with a shoot-out.

This statement of mine does not always scale, true. I will agree with you when it comes to force on force operations with advanced weapons. If every one would just agree to play nice [img]graemlins/love.gif[/img] we wouldn't need any form of defense. With the world the way it is, though; it would be great if nations would spend more on defense than offense. Force fields anyone? [img]graemlins/naughty.gif[/img]

Actually if two people have guns the first one that shoots wins. There is hardly ever an instant one person doesn't have a major advantage when guns are involved. Now if you hesistate then you die *shrug*.

You want to know the sad thing. The most violent and horrible people in the world are the least deadly people in close combat lol. Every single person I've met that is trained to kill in hand to hand combat is incredibily respectful of others. I've known guys that fight in korea and japan in "no rules" fights. The other guy will snap their arm in half at the elbow and they will still walk up to the guy after the fight and bow and shake hands (with whatever hand they have left). The people who start wars and bull**** are always the "weak little guy" that according to you guns even the field for. You don't see a man with a black belt or extensive martial training go start a freaking war anymore. You see a little nerd that can't talk straight and is supported by his father, and some old hairy guy in the middle of the desert with a fetish for chemical warfare decide they want to have a pissing contest. Hell bin laden is on a dialasis machine. Pull the cord out and walk away. These are the people that start wars now, the weak, the confused, and the pathetic. </font>[/QUOTE]So is the solution to just train everyone in hand to hand combat for the kill?
What about using sticks and stuff? [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img]

That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!

[ReodDai]

Originally posted by Ike:
So is the solution to just train everyone in hand to hand combat for the kill?
What about using sticks and stuff? [img]graemlins/stickpoke.gif[/img]

That board with a nail in it may have defeated us. But the humans won't stop there. They'll make bigger boards and bigger nails, and soon, they will make a board with a nail so big, it will destroy them all!

Ok Mr. Slime Alien from the Simpsons... ;)

No my point was that people that actually know how to fight and train for it (the stronger and better fighters) usually develop a much higher respect for those they fight and combat in general. The little turds that pick up a gun and pull the trigger have zero respect for just about everything (excludes armed forces, they aren't turds [mostly] and are highly trained). There is a reason the better fighter wins a fight. Its because THEY ARE BETTER lol. Now it just involves who has the most money, has nothing to do with talent, skill or drive.

[Ike]

Originally posted by ReodDai:
Ok Mr. Slime Alien from the Simpsons... ;)

No my point was that people that actually know how to fight and train for it (the stronger and better fighters) usually develop a much higher respect for those they fight and combat in general. The little turds that pick up a gun and pull the trigger have zero respect for just about everything (excludes armed forces, they aren't turds [mostly] and are highly trained). There is a reason the better fighter wins a fight. Its because THEY ARE BETTER lol. Now it just involves who has the most money, has nothing to do with talent, skill or drive.

There is nothing in this statement that I can disagree with.

I guess it's just that *some* private citizens want guns like a hobby and usually, if people are properly trained in gun safety, these are people with respect for others and firearms.

There are definately wackos out there, but it's not like stricter laws or bans will stop them from doing what they want.

[Domestic Violence]

i don't agree with any form of gun control unless you use it in a crime or have been previously convicted of a serious crime or a crime where a weapon was used.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by ellik:
theyve been banned since 1936, I believe.

this is all liberal propoganda used to misguide the masses in the fight to remove our right to bear arms, one step at a time.

WRONG...they aren't illegal, just heavily regulated. You have to wait at least 6 months to obtain a class 3 permit and the cost is something like $600. Thats just for the license...the tax is $600 per weapon or silencer as well. There are a few states that restrict them but I believe 37 states still allow these weapons. But I do agree with the liberal propoganda part...I hate it when the media and groups against a cause use emotion and not truth to fight what they don't like.