Originally Posted by BKsBimmer
That said, I've stated plainly I'm not a gun enthusiast. I don't own a gun and have no interest in owning guns. That doesn't disqualify me from this debate nor does it make my opinions less valuable. I feel very strongly about my opinions as i know you do. I'm prepared to have a respectful discussion and debate. Don't insult me and I won't insult you.
I notice the guns guys seem to be really focused on terminology, particularly the term "assault rifle". Keep in mind, I didn't create the term. That is the term being used in the current dialogue about guns and gun regulation in the US. What matters is how the law makers define the term "assault rifle". Any resulting gun legislation will be based on their definition, not mine.
Since you guys are so exorcised about the term maybe it's more pertinent to know how YOU define the term "assault rifle"?
It doesn't make your opinion any less valuable, but your lack of knowledge of the functionality between one firearm and another does somewhat affect the validity of some of your opinions.
The term Assault Rifle is a real term, unlike the term Assault Weapon which is a political term coined by the government in order to encapsulate any type of weapon they want to in a future ban.
An Assault Rifle is a rifle capable of firing in full automatic mode or a burst fire mode. When in full auto the weapon continues to fire round after round as long as the trigger is depressed. In burst mode, the weapon will fire 3 rounds every time the trigger is depressed.
A semi-automatic rifle fires one round for each time the trigger is depressed.
A bolt action rifle requires the shooter to manually eject a spent shell and chamber another. In a magazine feed bolt action rifle, an intermediate shooter can cycle the bolt in a second or less.
Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
I really dont understand what the point is of arguing about what constitutes an assault rifle vs. a hunting rifle, when realistically, many posters here would be opposed to any regulation against "assault rifles", no matter what definition the lawmakers eventually agree upon anyway ? (unless of course you think that it's possible to achieve a definition so restrictive, that nothing shy of a fully-automatic M60 would qualify, so practically speaking, what you can own would not change).
And speaking of that, how come people have not been saying that the 2nd amendment has been trampled for decades now, since the fact remains that you have never been able to buy a fully automatic M60 at Walmart. How is that not a violation of the 2nd amendment? If you need to provide a deterrent against the gov, and the gov is using an M60, then shouldnt you get one too, otherwise the asymmetry of power is so great that little deterrent exists anyways?
If the government is going to use an M60 to oppress you, and you already cant have one yourself, then it seems to me that going from 10 rounds per mag to 7 wont really make your chances to stop tyranny any worse than they already are.
Gov: "to keep your freedom, it will be 1-on-2 hoops, you vs. Lebron James and Chris Bosh".
Patriot: "ok sure".
Gov: "oh, and by the way, we're going to put a 1-pound wraparound weight on your waist".
Patriot: "holy shit, stop right there, now THATs trampling my rights to a fair fight"
At walmart, no. But we are legally able to buy fully automatic weapons. The only thing stopping anyone from doing so is cost. You have to qualify for Class III licensing, pay the taxes associated with that licensing, and then you have to be able to afford the weapon itself. These fully automatic weapons come with a hefty price tag ranging from $18k to $45k, some costing even more. But they are available.
Al, the point of being armed isn't to be as well armed as the government is. But to humor your example... We'll assume that the government isn't going to carpet bomb cities and the burbs or hammer the like with artillery or roll over cities with armored calvary. With this being the case it would be all the "robot solders" the military has created who would be fighting the citizens on the ground.
In the red corner, the challenger.... 2,300,000 well trained personnel with superior small arms weapons. (3.9 million of them if they borrow them from all the police in the country) In the blue corner, the world heavy weight champion.... 150,000,000 americans, hell bent on disallowing the government from taking their rights to freedom. Many as well trained as the challenger, all well armed with nearly 300 million small arms weapons.
I quite like those odds. Especially since every individual i know who is currently serving in the military is as disgruntled with our government as many of our citizens are.
The law abiding citizens being armed is a deterrent for the government exercising power, we the people, don't want them exercising. The constitution and bill of rights were written by the people, for the protection of the people.
And no, i wouldn't change what i can and can not currently own with regards to firearms. I've asked before and haven't received an answer from anyone yet. If the government sees me fit to own a weapon without being a threat to society, why regulate what type of weapons i can own?