The fact that ignorant people can't define it does nothing to detract from the people that can, whether they be pro or anti.How can you say you do not need it, if you cannot even clearly define it?
The fact that ignorant people can't define it does nothing to detract from the people that can, whether they be pro or anti.How can you say you do not need it, if you cannot even clearly define it?
That information was changed at a later point, the gun found in the trunk was the saiga 12ga shotgun.
Also, I was looking for a shooting I couldn't recall (Jonesboro/ 98) the specifics of, see that 3 rifles and some handguns were there, believe they only used the rifles, but don't see what they were. Interestingly, as both were minors, both shooters already served their time and were released in 05/ 07, though one of them is back in jail.
Last edited by Svifnymr; 2013-01-13 at 10:46 PM.
You are missing that point that in some cases the people writing the laws themselves cannot define it.
why?
Because its a made up term that does not in fact actually apply to any definitive weapon.
'Assault rifle' means something
'assault weapon' means nothing but whatever the person saying it wants it to mean.
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
watch it
I'd like to go a little off topic and make a call for some legislation of my own.
For years police and other law enforcement agencies in the United States have been spending billions of dollars on equipping themselves with military grade hardware. All under the auspice of protecting themselves from and countering the increasingly heavily armed population of criminals.
If progressive are so sure that banning certain weapons from civilian use ( news flash cops are technically civilians too, not that they will ever admit it ) will result in a reduction in the use of this heavy gear being used to commit crimes, would they also be in favor of simultaneously reducing the amount of military grade gear the law enforcers are using on our citizens? They've been claiming that we need give buy our cops machine guns in order to counter the big guns the criminals are supposedly using, so if we take away the criminals supply of big guns then doesn't that remove the need for cops to be equipped with them? I mean I hear people going on and on about 'NEED' here in this thread. So how often do cops NEED to use MP5's and M16's they get issued? How often does SWAT actually NEEd to use the grenades they are equipped with to do their job? ( Note: SWAT used to be a limited use squad for severe emergenies, now they are used everyday for basic police work...why?)
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 05:55 PM ----------
Don't people realize that warriors are trained to kill with knives and their bare hands?
Doesn't that make knives and fists weapons of war too?
I have not seen the new Feinstein bill yet. I have read the outline that is available on her site and saw nothing illogical or impractical. The fact that it is instantly thrown out by some before even seeing what it is, that is what I don't agree with. All that screams to me is "The Republic will rise if you try to take our guns" and I see that as ignorance at it's best.You are missing that point that in some cases the people writing the laws themselves cannot define it.
I'll give you one for the pro gun control types to salivate over.
The fact that mostly untrained types are able to achieve high body counts is the real problem that needs addressing.
These aren't soldiers gone mad, these are stupid kids with little to no military training taking out a lot of people...
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.
Only in the hands of the warriors that are trained to kill with knives and their bare hands, who want to inflict harm on innocent people. No different than a random kid off the streets, they are just better at it.Don't people realize that warriors are trained to kill with knives and their bare hands?
Doesn't that make knives and fists weapons of war too?
I hate to say it, but a lot of these kids learn the basics from video games.
OH GOD NO NOT THE GAMES, NOT HERE ON THE VIDEO GAME BOARDS!!!
But yeah its true. Lots of kids all over the world know a whole lot about a whole lot of different weapons because someone bought them CODMW and they spend 2 years collecting them all and learning how they all work. Now, it isn't the same as a real gun, but then the 9/11 hijackers spent some of their time learning to fly using Microsoft Flight Simulator.
If only we had some way to keep the guns away from them, we just might be able to reduce the casualty count. It's a lot harder to get an "Overkill" in Halo with a pistol than it is with the rocket launcher, yes?But yeah its true. Lots of kids all over the world know a whole lot about a whole lot of different weapons because someone bought them CODMW and they spend 2 years collecting them all and learning how they all work. Now, it isn't the same as a real gun, but then the 9/11 hijackers spent some of their time learning to fly using Microsoft Flight Simulator.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.
Why are they illegal?And yet, rocket launchers are already illegal.
The video I saw of them taking it out of the trunk, also showed them clearing it via a handle on the right side, which is how the saiga cleares, the AR is cleared via the rear charging handle, totally different action.
All of the video's I've seen are very grainy, and since it seems like at least some of the news coverage of the event is fabricated, who really knows.
Edit to add links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNRqp9pcfY8
and the saiga
---------- Post added 2013-01-13 at 06:18 PM ----------
Technically, no. I know some folks that own registered, legal grenade launchers for example.
Of course, explosives are tightly controlled, so ammo for them is expensive.
Last edited by Svifnymr; 2013-01-14 at 12:24 AM.
[Rocket Launchers aren't illegal, it's the rocket that is controlled. See the articles about "Rocket Launcher turned in during Gun Buyback" which is referring to an empty tube; it's like being freaked out over a spent shell casing.]
Because the supreme court rulings on the 2nd Amendment say that "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
Rocket launchers are not common use items. Tanks are not. Fully automatic weapons are not. Drones are not.
Semi-automatic rifles and handguns are common use firearms and should not be restricted.