Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@parados,

A battle rifle lacking a full-auto setting is advertised as a "feature" even if some consider it to be a "civilian model." Nevertheless, still called a battle rifle, such as the AR's and the AK's who are semi.

0 Replies

@Atom Blitzer,

No. No one can own a fully automatic rifle without a Federal license. Battle rifles with a switch to set to fully automatic require the license.

1 Reply

@Atom Blitzer,

Quote:

or fully autos should be highly regulated, which in some states, it is.

Sorry but class two weapons are highly regulated in all states under the Federal government to the point that as I already stated of all the hundreds of thousands of class two weapons legally own and in private hands one case of such a weapon being use in a crime is known.

Oh and it is a serous federal crime to have a fully auto weapon without the Federal licensing.

Once more you should do a little research before posting on this subject.

0 Replies

How does one argue with someone who has you on Ignore some of the time and you don't know which times.

Wrestling with an octopus is easier than that I should think.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

How does one argue with someone who has you on Ignore some of the time and you don't know which times.

Wrestling with an octopus is easier than that I should think.

Well perhaps you might want to think about increasing the quality and level of your posts and they might not have you on ignore? You might need to up it by about a hundred fold just to skim the bottom of their ignore decision though.

Let me put that into perspective for you. You know that sludge that settles at the bottom of a beer vat? Well you are not quite at that level of quality. Your posts are the equivalent if you poured out that sludge and let the mice and rats eat it and then you know their urine and feces that resulted from eating that sludge? Well your post quality would almost achieve that level of quality.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Well perhaps you might want to think about increasing the quality

Popularity and Quality not only are not the same thing in America these days, in fact they tend to be opposites, one of the many reasons why the A2K popularity centered programming was a mistake of epic proportions. I believe in democracy, but I am not dumb enough to expect good policy from an ignorant electorate. The solution is sound families and a functioning education system.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
In other words, you have no argument against any of the facts I presented, so you are trying to fog the issue with a bit of bluster.

I was commenting about you thinking your assertions are facts which is kid's stuff as a fact.

No, you were spewing a bit of bluster to cover your full retreat from the facts I posted.

0 Replies

@Atom Blitzer,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

Unless you're going to war, you're not gonna need it.

Need is an irrelevant question when it comes to guns that we have the right to have.

Atom Blitzer wrote:

Guns that shoot 100's of rounds per minute, now why would you need that?

Stop making things up. Semi-autos can't shoot that fast.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Let me ask you Bill. Is a gun that can shoot 100 rounds per minute more deadly than one that can shoot 10 rounds per minute?

Of what relevance is that, given the fact that assault weapons shoot no faster than non-assault weapons?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I am not a rifle person but a 100 rounds a minute you quoted seem high for any semi-auto rifle and from the below info I was right it is about half of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire

Semi-Automatic rate The semi-automatic rate is the assault rifle/semi-auto only version on rapid fire. It is the maximum rate that a weapon can fire with any degree of accuracy in semi-auto mode, usually 45-60 rpm.

Indeed. I would be surprised that any accuracy would be possible even at that rate. That is more like the maximum rate possible when not aiming at all.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I see you have failed to answer my question Bill.

Given that your question did not seem at all pertinent to the issue, it really looks like some kind of straw man.

He did address your question by asking for a clarification. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks that your question looks like a straw man.

What is the point about asking about widely differing rates of fire when assault weapons have the same rate of fire as non-assault weapons?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

Guns that shoot 100's of rounds per minute, now why would you need that?

oralloy wrote:

Stop making things up. Semi-autos can't shoot that fast.

It isn't about how fast a weapon can fire or how many bullets can be ejected from it's barrel.

The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the rights of citizens to protect themselves if come a day when the government wants to impose it's tyranny onto the people.

Now a lot of people scoff and ridicule people who say this. Because the government has done a great job and making people believe that government is necessary and that the ONLY way to solve problems is to give up your freedoms and allow the government to take over. People do it willingly and yet they are no safer but they are less free. They lost something and gained nothing.

The whole point the founding fathers were trying to address is that the citizens should have access to and own "every kind of instrument of war" so that if the government were to use these "terrible instruments of war" against it's own people, that the people would have ways of preserving their rights.

As it sits now with these lame arguments that citizens don't need guns that can fire hundreds rounds a second are only handing over their power to the government and assuming that the government will always have their best interests in mind.

You can think I am a gun crazy anti government freak if you want. But I am only pointing out what the founders were trying to achieve and why it is necessary to keep this in mind. Give away your freedom if you think it will make you safer but there is no guarantee that you are safer.

A person can kill just as easily and just as many people with a hand gun and lots of clips than a single assault riffle. In some cases the hand gun is more accurate. People assume that higher rate of fire equals higher death count. But it's not necessarily true. Of course I'm not going to convince any anti-gun activist that any of this is reasonable or worth understanding. They have been convinced by the government that fire arms are not necessary.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So in other words Bill is more than willing to make an argument that a weapon that shoots one bullet per minute is just as deadly as one that shoots 100 bullets per minute.

Nonsense. He made no such argument.

He instead pressed for clarification on whether you are claiming that assault weapons have an increased rate of fire (they don't).

0 Replies

@Atom Blitzer,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

After the ban was expired in 2004, assault rifles are commonly considered to be full auto rifles (selective fire in other words with an option to switch on or off).

Nope. You freedom haters are still trying to ban semi-autos by calling them assault weapons and trying to fool people into thinking they are full auto.

It's not going to work.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

BULLSHIT as the so call assault rifles ban never repeat never address class two type weapons IE fully auto weapons.

An the talk of reintroducing such a ban also have nothing to do with fully auto weapons.

Next federal law for being license to own a class two weapons cover all class two weapons and in no state can you own one without a class two license from the Federal government.

I had friends who have class two weapons and they needed to jump through all kinds of h0ops and at last check of the hundreds of thousands of class two weapons legally in private hands in the US only one had ever been used in an illegal manner.

You might wish to do some research so you are not posting nonsense.

You are right on assault weapons not being full autos. Atom Blitzer is just a freedom hater trying to ban semi-autos through misleading language.

However, you are misapplying the term "Class II". The best term for the weapons you are talking about is: "NFA weapons".

A class II license is a license to be a manufacturer of NFA weapons.

No license is required to own a NFA weapon (at least under federal law, some state laws require you to get a curio and relic license).

However NFA weapons do need to be registered (usually on a Form 4, but militiamen would have the right to use a Form 10).

1 Reply

@Atom Blitzer,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

I never said it addressed class two type weapons

Yes you did. You jumped right into the middle of a debate about reinstating the ban by spewing a bunch of lies about the guns being full auto.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No. No one can own a fully automatic rifle without a Federal license.

Nonsense. Only a few states require someone to get a federal license before owning a full auto weapon.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

It isn't about how fast a weapon can fire or how many bullets can be ejected from it's barrel.

It is when people are trying to use untrue arguments to that effect in order to justify an unconstitutional ban on a type of gun.

Krumple wrote:

The whole point of the 2nd amendment was to guarantee the rights of citizens to protect themselves if come a day when the government wants to impose it's tyranny onto the people.

. . . .

The whole point the founding fathers were trying to address is that the citizens should have access to and own "every kind of instrument of war" so that if the government were to use these "terrible instruments of war" against it's own people, that the people would have ways of preserving their rights.

That isn't quite right. What the Framers really wanted was to prevent tyranny from arising in the first place, by making the government have to rely on the citizenry (i.e. the militia) as its primary armed force.

Their thinking was that the people would refuse to impose tyranny on themselves, so by making it so that the government had to go to the people every time it needed an armed force to enforce its will, they would prevent tyranny.

Krumple wrote:

these lame arguments that citizens don't need guns that can fire hundreds rounds a second

Lame argument indeed. This entire thing about "need" is silly when dealing with guns that people have the right to have.

And within the context of the militia, people have the right to have automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas, and the right to keep them in their own homes.

Serfs have to justify why they need something. Free people never do.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I stand corrected. You are right. The framers never intended for a standing army/military. We should have always had a militia made up of those who want to protect the country from invasions rather than standing armies that want to go out and conquer the world.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

sorry but I am sure you are wrong as I have friends who needed to jump through all kinds of hoops to own fully auto weapons with the fed

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know