Thanis

Just wanted to stir the nest a bit.

I've read a lot of threads on how liberals don't understand what an assault rifle is. However in a lot of those those threads I also see post that states anti-gun would call a hunting rifle with a high capacity mag an assault rifle.

I then see the next level of assumption that I find odd. People post that there should be no ban on "assault weapons" because there is no real difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle with a high capacity mag.

I think this logic is flawed. You can not state anti-gun is stupid because they can't tell the difference between an assault weapon and a hunting rifle then turn around and say there is no real difference.

At one time I considered buying a high capacity mag for my Remington 30.06. I then realized how hot the barrel can become (and how this is not the right weapon to shoot multiple shots out of fast). Assault weapons get hot, but they are designed to take the heat.

There are also confusing caliber issues.

I'm in no way stating there should be an assault weapon ban. But I know there is a difference between a hunting rifle and a an assault rifle.

762

30 rounds through my AK and you can cook eggs on my barrel.

It's more about appearance then function. A Remington 700 has a 5 round capacity which would be considered a machine gun in D.C.

__________________
Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

mlr1m

Type of weapon has nothing to do with banning anything. Its only a label or tool to use to make their job easier. I recall many years ago watching c-span when a congressman referred to a 44 mag desert eagle as an assault weapon.

Notice how now that they have added this new term to our vocabulary they constantly try to add new weapons to it? Firearms that were not assault weapons last year suddenly are now?

Now they are adding semi-auto's to the machine gun lists.
All this has nothing to do with any particular type of weapon. Its just a tool they are using to ban all guns.
Anyone else remember way back when they said all they wanted to take were the machine guns? They didnt want anything else?
Afterall we didnt really "NEED" them.

Michael

Kerbouchard

When the anti's start defining any high powered rifle with a scope as a sniper rifle with bullet proof vest penetrating rounds, IMO, that is going too far.

__________________
Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever.

http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

Who is John Galt?

raevan

They went to far when they stopped Mail order of surplus weapons. They wont stop till they get all weapons that can shoot a projectile. All the way down to Rubber bands and spitwads. Some places already ban slingshots and blowguns as well as crossbows.

762

the media created the "assault weapon" and the public bought it along with the anti gun politicians.

we didn't "need" machine guns...soon they will tell us we don't need rifles that hold more then 1 round.

__________________
Let's Roll - Todd Beamer

MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

Thanis

How is "assault weapon" a new term added by liberals? I think was a military term (1st mentioned in WW2 by Germany?).

Agree.

However, it also goes to far to state that there should be no ban on "assault weapons" because there is no real difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle with a high capacity mag.

To state again, I'm not saying there should be a ban, I'm just saying this is a flawed argument by gun-owners.

whyipackmy45

Have you seen the fake Palin bikini picture where she is holding a BB gun?

Several people in the media called that gun an "assault rifle" and even an "AK-47".

__________________
That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about a hundred and nine, ninety five. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?

http://www.nevadashooters.com

Thanis

Well, not really. People assumed that the media assumed the picture was an assault rifle.

Besides, how does what you are stating justify stating there should be no ban on "assault weapons" because there is no real difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle with a high capacity mag?

I think anti-assault ban should come up with a better argument. Not that I'm for an assault ban. I just want to better understand the issue, beyond this weak old statement.

wpk

Aren't all weapons technically "assault weapons"? I could hit someone with a stick I found on the ground...the stick is now a weapon that I assaulted someone with. Hrm...is there a CC permit for sticks? I think I could cobble up a nice IWB rig for one.