57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  3  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 09:37 am
@H2O MAN,
No. I was right. You were wrong, or at best, you can't read. A semi-automatic WITH NO OTHER MODE OF FIRE is not a assault rifle because if it has NO OTHER MODE OF FIRE it doesn't have a VARIABLE RATE of fire. I said the key feature is variable rate of fire.

Idiot. The enjoyment I get out of being right with you guys is almost triple when I trump you on a gun topic. You were wrong, or an idiot. You pick. Either way, I accept your apology.

This is euphoric.
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 09:46 am
@Diest TKO,
Semi automatic rifles are not assault rifles.

Diest TKO wrote:

The key definition of a assault rifle is not automatic fire, but that the rate of fire is variable, i.e. - you can have multiple modes (single, 3-round burst, full auto).
A fully automatic machine gun is not a "assault rifle" by definition, however it may fall under the definition of a "assault weapon" based on it's features (clip size etc).




The key definition of an assault rifle is it's ability to fire in a mode other than
semi auto, but the size of the weapon and the caliber it fires are also a factor.

Also, no assault rifles use clips.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 09:57 am
The question is whether the government can, and should, ban military-style assault weapons. I think that Heller would permit this. I am sure that there will be cases on this question in the near future.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:00 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

The question is whether the government can, and should, ban military-style assault weapons.


No, the question is and has been about restricting the ownership of assault weapons.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:17 am
@H2O MAN,
Can't read well can you? Doesn't matter. I've already came and embarrassed you. I don't need to rub it in.

T
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 10:24 am
@Diest TKO,


Rub what in?

All you did was post a convoluted Wiki definition of when a weapon is
an assault weapon, something that had already been clearly defined.

The only thing you accomplished was to reinforce what we already
knew to be true... TKO doesn't know a thing about weapons.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 12:00 pm
H2O and his ilk may have a point. The economy is sinking and, long-term, I think that the economic outlook for the USA is very poor. Thus, we may have to resort to being a pirate nation, at which point we will need those assault weapons.
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 12:06 pm
@Advocate,



PrezBO and his ilk are modern day pirates, American citizens must defend
themselves and this Constitutional Republic from these modern day pirates.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 01:28 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:

David - I thought you gun folk knew everything about guns.

Thank u for your hi esteem,
but we in the freedom of self-defense community r too modest to accept
your attribution of omniscience; the same as cars:
thay can be fun, but it 'd be superhuman
to know everything about everything concerning cars,
so our inexorable humility will not permit us to accept your characterization.






Quote:

The key definition of a assault rifle is not automatic fire,
but that the rate of fire is variable, i.e. - you can have multiple modes
(single, 3-round burst, full auto).

U have proof of this ?
or were u imbued with this concept by supernatural epifany from above ?







Quote:

A fully automatic machine gun is not a "assault rifle" by definition,

AGREED.
Every m.g. I 've ever known has been belt-fed.

Shoulder fired automatic weapons that r magazine-fed, r usually "automatic rifles"
like the legendary B.A.R.







Quote:
however it may fall under the definition of a "assault weapon"
based on it's features (clip size etc).

Rocks, knives or rolled-up newspapers can be weapons,
if thay r used to assault anyone; glass gasoline bottles with burning fuses (Molotov Cocktails) r assault weapons.
The limits r those of the imagination, as Mr. Serling 'd say.







Quote:

Just when I think there is one topic you guys might actually know enough about...

We know EVEN MORE ? Awwww. . . . u r being too nice -- gosh; -- u make me blush . . . .





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 01:49 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Quote:
The question is whether the government can, and should, ban military-style assault weapons. . . .

Perhaps u 'll remember that the USSC 's problem with the sawn-off shotgun
in US v. MILLER was that no evidence had been taken by the trial court
to show that it was still A FUNCTIONING WEAPON, useful to a militia in that mutilated condition.

The 2A protects citizens' possession of WEAPONS, not junk.
The trial court 's error was in taking judicial notice
that a sawn off shotgun is still a weapon.

M-14s with selector switches and M-16s are obviously useful to militia.





David
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 16 Apr, 2009 08:50 pm



Obama Backs Away From Assault Gun Ban

The president, after meeting with Mexico's president, said he preferred to focus on enforcing existing
laws to keep assault weapons out of Mexico, rather than trying to renew the U.S. ban on the weapons.


Good news, but I still don't trust him or his administration...
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 03:34 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:




Obama Backs Away From Assault Gun Ban

The president, after meeting with Mexico's president, said he preferred to focus on enforcing existing
laws to keep assault weapons out of Mexico, rather than trying to renew the U.S. ban on the weapons.


Good news, but I still don't trust him or his administration...

1 ) He knows that he has plenty to do, already.

2 ) He n his advisors know what happened to CLINTON,
hard on the heels of Congress' unconstitutional enactment of the "AWB." (Clinton lost BOTH houses of Congress.)
He does not desire to have a lot of things blow up in his face.





David
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 08:28 am
@H2O MAN,
This is good news.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
As you wish...

Assault Rifle...
wikipedia wrote:
An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes).


Assault Weapon...
wikipedia wrote:
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a legal term, separate from the technical definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features generally associated with military assault rifles. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Conspicuous pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher
* Barrel shroud


And just for fun...

NRA-ILA wrote:
ASSAULT RIFLE
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.


I had an unfair advantage. I've had this exact same talk before and I knew exactly where the road of definitions leads. I had all the face cards.

T
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:32 am

Assault Weapon: A meaningless term fabricated by the ignorant left.
Diest TKO
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:45 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:


Assault Weapon: A meaningless term fabricated by the ignorant left.

A dozen: An arbitrary value.

Just because you don't like it's meaning, doesn't make it meaningless or mean that you can ignore the definition. Assault weapons exactly what I posted, and a dozen is always going to be 12, even if you don't like it. Even if you don't use the term.

You keep losing. You were wrong about the election. Wrong about this. "Wrong" itself is your modus operandi.

T
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:48 am
@Diest TKO,


Wrong again TKO!

The term is fake and meaningless.
Only ignorant morons believe it's real.
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:53 am
@H2O MAN,
I want you to know. I'll never get tired of watching you be wrong. It never loses it's humor because you are of zero consequence. This becomes your contribution: To be a belligerent anti-intellectual and embarrass yourself.

Watching you whine and cry about legal terms you wish didn't exist is no more compelling than you trying to redefine a dozen to mean 10 or to not be used as a term at all.

I don't give a damn if you like it, and in fact I enjoy the way it bothers you.

T
K
O
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:56 am
@Diest TKO,
Rolling Eyes As if any additional confirmation was needed... TKO confirms once again that he is an ignorant moron.

Do everyone a favor and stay away from all fire arms - you lack the intelligence and common sense required to be near them.
And for god's sake TKO, never, ever pick up a fire arm!
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 10:58 am
@H2O MAN,
http://www.splendicity.com/makeupminute/files/2009/01/kleenex.jpg
There there. It's been a hard year for you Waterboy. Wipe those tears away.

T
K
O
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 02/25/2025 at 10:06:00