Why would ANYONE want "assault weapons"?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/10/2004 10:58:26 AM · #1

//hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=985

Many of the guns which current assault weapons bans are targeting -- including the federal ban enacted in 1994 -- are the very guns with which the Korean-American merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. For those of you who may not recall the Los Angeles Riots, let me tell you about this tragedy. On April 29, 1992, African-Americans, upset over the verdict in the Rodney King case, took to the streets of Korea Town in downtown Los Angeles. Although these innocent Korean-Americans had nothing to do with the police brutality inflicted upon Rodney King, their businesses were singled out. Calls for help came in to 911 by the hundreds. But citizens were informed that no assistance was available. Order had broken down. People were on their own.

As a result of one night of violence, 55 people died, over 2300 were injured and one billion dollars of property damage was sustained according to the Christian Science Monitor. Gunfire killed 35 people. Six died in arson fires. Attackers used sticks or boards to kill two people. Two others were stabbed to death. Six died in car accidents, two in hit-and-runs, and one person was strangled. The violence crossed racial and ethnic lines.

Seventy-five percent of the businesses destroyed belonged to Korean-Americans. Those Korean-American merchants who possessed assault weapons and used them to defend themselves, would likely have a different story about gun control laws and how they help victims. The Korean-American merchants would agree that when one is facing mob violence and the police are unable to respond, one may need a gun that shoots more than just six bullets or has a menacing appearance. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family rather than deter crime.

I remember 1992 -- the most vivid imagery that came to mine was the Korean store owners with their M60's (though probably illegal in California, the police never found it afterwards) which shoots automatic and 0.223 rounds, and assortment of AR-15/AK-47 variants from a roof top. Everywhere else was burning, except for their block.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

11/10/2004 11:50:51 AM · #2

This is an interesting topic. I'd like to first nitpick and say that 0.223 rounds ARE automatic rounds...the only difference between (as you probably know) a semi-automatic rifle and an automatic rifle is a limiter which prevents the action from cycling through while the trigger is held down. While Hatch says that these rifles are mechanically identical to a hunting rifle, that's wrong. A bolt-action hunting rifle is completely different. If you want something for hunting semi-automatic isn't ideal. But I digress...

The original intent behind the rights of an individual bearing arms was to enable the makeup of a militia. Is that what goes on now? If this original intent were upheld, everyone would have some basic military training and be equipped with the real stuff so that one would actually have an understanding behind the use of the rifle. Just possessing the rifle isn't nearly enough. Automatic weapons are HARD to use. If you'd never been trained to use one under that situation, it wouldn't be used properly, or effectively. As it stands now, it is very irresponsible to give someone an automatic weapon and ensure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot just trying to turn the safety off.

Personally I'd be in favour of everyone being trained how to use these things properly, and of everyone possessing some level of military training so that the original intent of that amendment were maintained. Sadly, like seemingly everything these days, the amendment seems to be used as a shortcut. Be allowed to own the weapon, but not be required to train with one in such a way that you could be effective in an armed conflict situation. With freedom comes duty and responsibility, and I think people forget that.

Hell, they train everyone and give them a rifle in Switzerland. When was the last time you heard someone describle Switzerland as violent?

Message edited by author 2004-11-10 12:07:56.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

11/10/2004 03:27:47 PM · #3

Legal definition of militia:

UNITED STATES CODE
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

Â§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are --

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;

and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

---

In other words, militia is everyone :) This is still in the federal law today, to define what a militia is. "unorganized" means anyone that fit the first description, namely men between ages of 17 to 45.

Actually 0.223 rounds are just ammunition, you can have a bolt action rifle that shoots 0.223 rounds. The difference is that automatic rounds means pressig the trigger can squirt more than 1 round. Semi automatic means each trigger only 1 round and the chambering of the next round is done automatically (instead of bolt action where you have to do it manually). Assault weapons are, by definition, fully automatic machine guns. The Assault weapons ban doesn't ban these.

Automatic weaopns are banned already -- it's a good public relations tactic by the Democrats but it really doesn't do anything other than making legal gun owners' life miserable (i.e. buying a rifle after 1994 with a pre-1994 configuration is 10 years imprisonment.)

I think everyone who owns guns should take some training, or train themselves at a gun range. I'm not disputing that.. bu ti don' tthink it should be a "requirement" to own guns, because doing so will then put the decision of whether one can own firearms in teh hands of the government and that's not what 2nd amendment was intended for.

Anyway, i posted this in case someone was yelping about how bad "assault weapons" are in terms of teh ban (the guns banned aren't assault weapons to begin with).

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

11/10/2004 04:28:45 PM · #4

I'm not posting this to start an argument, I enjoy going out and blasting some clay. But since your posting a lopsided view on the issue, I figured I'll post something from the other side.

As ATF has explained:
Assault weapons were designed for rapid fire, close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.

although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime. ATF's analysis of guns traced to crime showed that assault weapons "are preferred by criminals over law abiding citizens eight to one....Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless."

Mass Slayings of Civilians
Assault weapons have been used to perpetrate some of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United States.

The McDonald's shooting - On July 18, 1984, James Huberty killed 21 people and wounded 19 others in a San Ysidro, California, McDonald's using an UZI assault pistol and a shotgun.

The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children and wounded 29 others and a teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semiautomatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.

The Louisville, Kentucky, workplace massacre - On September 14, 1989, Joseph Wesbecker killed 7 people and wounded 13 others at his former place of work in Louisville, Kentucky, before taking his own life. Mr. Wesbecker was armed with an AK-47 rifle, two MAC-11 assault pistols, and a duffle-bag full of ammunition.

The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Kasi used a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.

The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.

The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.

all info aquired from Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence

11/10/2004 05:57:09 PM · #5

Tragic, but in the grand scheme of violence, this amounts to very little difference in terms of crime. Is that all you can produce? The fact is the banned assault weapons amount to very little in terms of crime, about 1% annual, if at that much.

ATF is the most jackbooted organization in the US government. A lot of gun owners hate them with a passion. They redefine it during the Clinton administration. Assault weapons, by any stretch of imagination, has to be automatic.

A skilled person witha bolt action rifle can do as much of damage as assault weapons -- case in point the University of Texas tower where an ex-marine uses an old Italian bolt action rifle to snipe students from the tower. I believe he killed 7-8 people and wounded others, from a distance of 300 meters.

If that's all the Brady bunch can come up with, that's really laughable. I can probably point out that the number of people that died from KNIVES far exceeds the number from assault weapons.

of course, try explaining that to some liberal and they'll never get it. Eric, you live in Massachussetts, where everything is banned. Dont' pretend that you're a gun owner like Kerry's a gun owner just because he happens to kill a few geese for electoin purposes.

11/10/2004 05:59:49 PM · #6

Besides, all these points are moot. THe Constitution gurantees the right to bear arms -- if liberals want to amend it, go ahead. That, my friend, would be the right process. Just like Bush wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as a man and a woman -- it is the RIGHT process, not through the courts like what liberals do. With the process of amending constitution, the people hvae a voice in what they want to do, instead of some liberal judge appointed by an leftist extremist and not elected by the people.

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM

11/10/2004 06:10:09 PM · #7

Truth is, assault weapon ban is the just the first step to gun confiscation in the US. Here's what Senator Diane Feinstein said about the ban:

All told, H.R. 2038 is a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), on CBS` "60 Minutes"-- "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

//www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=114

gingerbaker

Canon EOS-5D

11/10/2004 06:15:45 PM · #8

I can't tell - paganini, are you a liberal or not? :D

As far as I can tell, the Constitution does *not* contain the right to bear arms.

Oh, it has a second amendment, but I don't think it has *ever* been used to guarantee the right of an individual to bear a firearm.

I think it is because the Supreme Court is/was full of right-wing constructionists who do not broaden the scope of the Constitution beyond the specific words written - hence, only the State militia is guaranteed the right to bear arms. ;D

Now, if you had some good broad-minded liberal judges in there, things would be different. :D

dwoolridge

11/10/2004 06:16:19 PM · #9

Welcome to the paganini hour, where debate ist verboten and there is no point.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/11/2004 08:54:50 PM · #10

I'm a liberal.

I want an assault rifle. It would go ever so nicely with my housemate's Benelli shotgun and gloss gun-metal black Desert Eagle.

Did I just upset your two-dimensional worldview?

Too bad.

Russell2566

11/11/2004 09:19:47 PM · #11

Originally posted by ericlimon:

They are mass produced mayhem.

Feeding into the propaganda a bit I see.

Originally posted by ericlimon:

although assault weapons constituted less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they were a far higher percentage of the guns used in crime.

An outright lie

Originally posted by ericlimon:

Assault weapons have been used to perpetrate some of the worst mass murders ever committed in the United States.

.

I can say the same about razor blades! More people are killed each year by baseball bats than by what the Government classified as assult weapons (PRE BAN).

The rest of the material which was copied and pasted from the brady foundation is filled with omissions of facts and misleadings to draw the perfect scene that THEY want for their AGENDA. I can go into detail about each incedent cited and the real facts, but instead I think you should do your own research. I hope you'll choose a research center better than bradycampaign.org.

MadMordegon

11/11/2004 09:28:07 PM · #12

LOL Mousie your sig is still the best on DPC.. I laugh everytime I read it :)

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

11/11/2004 11:24:45 PM · #13

Originally posted by paganini:

there was a long thread about this a few months ago when then so called ban was lifted. There is no ban now, and if people understood what the actual ban did when it was law they would know that there never really was a ban to begin with.

It gets really old hearing people say, "that assault weapon has no sporting purpose"... who cares if it has a sporting purpose. Sporting purposes are not why we have guns.

I can see many people are greatly misinformed about not only the assault weapons law but firearms laws in general. The ban was nothing more that a farse. It didn't "ban" assault weapons. Before the ban was lifted I could go down and buy one any day of the week.

First of all, though the assault weapons ban wasn't even a ban, it didn't do anything to the criminals and hurt only people with legal right to own these weapons. Secondly, the ban had NOTHING what so ever to do with fully automatic weapons (machine guns), which in our country have been regulated and taxed since the 1920's. ANYONE who has the legal right to own firearms in this country can go out and get a fully automatic class 2 or 3 firearm or a silencer once they pass an ATF background check, a state back ground check and fingerprinting, and can pay the $200 to $500 tax stamp on top the $2000-$60,000 cost of the firearm. The media is the one responsible for 98% of the misconceptions with this ban. This ban only did a few things and none of them did anything at all with stopping crime. If you look at the so called ban, tell me how it "stopped crime" Here are the main things it did-

1.) stopped all rifles made after 94' from having a flash suppressor. Who cares about a flash suppressor really?? Commercial ammo has a flash inhibitor to prevent flash so you wouldn't need a suppressor anyway. Only the military needs it since they don't use flash inhibitor in their ammo.

2.) Made it illegal to have a bayonet lug on guns made after 94'. When was the last time you heard of criminals attacking people with a bayonet on the end of their rifle???

3.)stopped guns from being made with magazines that held more than 10 rounds. Stupid law since all the companies did was make rifles and pistols that took the high capacity mags that were made before the ban and could still be owned and purchased after the ban.

4.) tried to get rid of pistol grips. What difference does a pistol grip make on a gun?? it doesn't make it more accurate, if it did all sniper rifles would have one.

The whole law was ridiculous and did nothing what so ever for stopping crime. The USA has like 34,000 laws pertaining to firearms control and abuse and we can't even enforce those (and our constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate firearms in the first place). Not that any of them would help stop crime if we could. If you look at the figures for deaths related to the so called "assault weapons" you will see they account for less than 1/2 of a percent of crime. All the weapons covered by this ban were still being made and sold minus the cosmetic's in the ban, the gun was still the same gun. The media making everyone think that assault weapon meant the issued military automatic rifle, is responsible for all the misconception.

Next, it is growing very tiresome hearing people say we don't need assault weapons to hunt with. That has nothing to do with why we have the right to bear arms. (BTW the shotgun Kerry held up at an election rally as a gift was in a class of guns he voted to ban, what a hypocrite.)

Machine guns, assault rifles, and other military weapons are exactly what our founding fathers meant for us to own. Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin were not sitting around one day saying, "You know old chap, I really fancy an outing of target shooting, or even a hunt. I think we should have the right to bear arms". No, they were thinking about how they had to defend themselves against a military force; a military force that had military style weapons. Assault rifles are the only rifles that give civilians a chance at defending themselves against a hostile foreign or domestic military force.

HUNTING has nothing to do with why we have the right to bear arms. We have these weapons to defend our country against all threats both foreign and domestic. Our founding fathers came from a country that was ruled by an iron fisted tyrant. They knew they did not want some monarch who's only connection to power over the people was his birthright. Our fathers realized how ridiculous it was to give this kind of power to someone that did not deserve it, or to someone that was not sensible enough to use the power wisely. They were students of history. They knew absolute power corupts absolutely. That is why they set up our government the way they did. In the process, none of the states would ratify the constitution until the 2nd amendment was added. They knew they had to provide for a way to defend our freedom, then and in the future. They did so by giving us our gun rights.

The 2nd amendment is the only law we have that allows all of the other freedoms we have to remain in place. The right to bear arms is why we have the oldest and longest standing democratic constitution in the world. Without the right to defend your freedoms, sooner or later some power monger is going to come along and try to take them away.

Currently, while there are leftist liberals trying to take not only our gun rights away, but our way of living as independant Americans (They want to make this a socialist country), we are not at a point in American history were we need to be concerned with an immediate threat of some kind of tyrannical take over. Our country is fabulous, even with all of it's social probelms. Why do you think billions of people apply for residence here every day?

What we do need to be immediately concerned with is the threat of terrorism. I would not be suprised if the bastards tried some crap here like they did recently in Russia. I guarantee if that happens, Americans will not let them walk out alive. Just like in Russia when the terrorists tried to escape the school and the citizens attacked them with the weapons they had, we will do the same. Only here we won't be attacking them with just shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles.

Funny thing about the British troops here before the revolutionary war that always stuck with me. When they said we didn't need the Military flintlock style rifles (assault rifles of the era) to defend ourselves because they were here to defend us, they ordered civilians to turn their weapons in. Guess what the Brits did when the citizens turned the assault weapons in? Well, at Lexington, the British, being the benevolent rulers that they were, shot and killed everyone of the gun owners...

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Once again your utterly and completely misinformed. You appearently have no idea what your talking about. To begin with .223 rounds are not just for semi-auto or fully automatic weapons. My little brothers hunting rifle is a single shot bolt action rifle chambered in .223. Also, there are numerous hunting rifles that use semi-automatic actions. The Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (.223 caliber) is one of the most popular semi-auto hunting rifles made today. I know many many people that own and hunt with one. I myself own a few semi-auto rifles I hunt with. Matter of fact the rifle I shot a deer with last year is semi-automatic. So please, before you start talking about your gun knowledge, get your facts straight.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

The original intent behind the rights of an individual bearing arms was to enable the makeup of a militia. Is that what goes on now? If this original intent were upheld, everyone would have some basic military training and be equipped with the real stuff so that one would actually have an understanding behind the use of the rifle. Just possessing the rifle isn't nearly enough. Automatic weapons are HARD to use. If you'd never been trained to use one under that situation, it wouldn't be used properly, or effectively. As it stands now, it is very irresponsible to give someone an automatic weapon and ensure that they're not going to shoot themselves in the foot just trying to turn the safety off.

As I said above, you have to go through several background checks to get a fully automatic weapon. They don't just hand them out.

In regards to your misinterpretation I'll again point out that your greatly misinformed and misinterpreting the English grammar behind the 2nd amendment.

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (other than all of the judges and courts that disagree with you)? How about an expert on the English language?

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

Professor Copperud was interviewed in a phone call regarding the proper interpretation of the grammar in question. The following is an is the text of that interview:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Hell, they train everyone and give them a rifle in Switzerland. When was the last time you heard someone describle Switzerland as violent?

proof positive that guns are not the problem...

//www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html

Message edited by author 2004-11-11 23:26:31.

Russell2566

11/11/2004 11:47:54 PM · #14

Great post!

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

11/12/2004 12:46:54 AM · #15

I was merely responding to Paganini's statement that a .223 round was different than an automatic round. A shell obviously isn't automatic...it's the rifle that is. The .223 round is used in the M16 and many other weapons, though, and is very standard in automatic weaponry. I never made any claim that it wasn't ALSO used in bolt action rifles too. As for your point about hunting rifles, well, while you may want to think that a semi-automatic M16 is (my words) an 'ideal' hunting rifle, well, you'd be incorrect. A semi-automatic rifle of any sort isn't going to be as accurate as a bolt-action rifle.

Originally posted by Anachronite:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
This is an interesting topic. I'd like to first nitpick and say that 0.223 rounds ARE automatic rounds...the only difference between (as you probably know) a semi-automatic rifle and an automatic rifle is a limiter which prevents the action from cycling through while the trigger is held down. While Hatch says that these rifles are mechanically identical to a hunting rifle, that's wrong. A bolt-action hunting rifle is completely different. If you want something for hunting semi-automatic isn't ideal.

Once again your utterly and completely misinformed. You appearently have no idea what your talking about. To begin with .223 rounds are not just for semi-auto or fully automatic weapons. My little brothers hunting rifle is a single shot bolt action rifle chambered in .223. Also, there are numerous hunting rifles that use semi-automatic actions. The Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle (.223 caliber) is one of the most popular semi-auto hunting rifles made today. I know many many people that own and hunt with one. I myself own a few semi-auto rifles I hunt with. Matter of fact the rifle I shot a deer with last year is semi-automatic. So please, before you start talking about your gun knowledge, get your facts straight.

Message edited by author 2004-11-12 00:48:59.

MadMordegon

11/12/2004 01:26:53 AM · #16

Originally posted by Anachronite:

"You know old chap, I really fancy an outing of target shooting, or even a hunt. I think we should have the right to bear arms"

LOL man thats hilarious.

My opinion on the subject.. I donâ��t think it should be an issue. Not in the splitting hairs way that it is at least. We as humans on earth have far more important things to worry about.