NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

And how often does 'a large group of people' get 'cut down quickly'? Does it happen enough to nessecitate this absurd law?

The real issue here is that the same people who want to ban assult rifles, would have no problem banning ALL firearms from citizens. They pick on assult rifles because they think they can get a small win, followed by another win, followed by another.

Refer to my point about the simularites between anti-gun and pro-choice people.

Does it matter that it only happens every now and then? Only rarely are groups of people killed by explosives in America. Should we legalize them, then?

You discount the idea that the current restrictions are one of the reasons that it doesn't happen that often...

Your 'real issue' is untrue. I want to ban assualt rifles (and pistols), and I own two long rifles and a shotgun myself. You are lumping people together for no good reason, and also Appealing to Extremes; not a great argument to make.

Cycloptichorn

There is not currently a restriction.

And when has it happened? Show me examples where people have been cut down by a hundred round magazine.

There is little to no difference in carrying around 1 100-round magazine and carrying around 10 10-round magazines.

joefromchicago wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I would argue that there is no functional difference between a 10 and 100 round magazine.

Then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Ad hominem

There is little to no difference in carrying around 1 100-round magazine and carrying around 10 10-round magazines.

maporsche wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

maporsche wrote:

I would argue that there is no functional difference between a 10 and 100 round magazine.

Then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Ad hominem

You really don't know what you're talking about.

maporsche wrote:

There is little to no difference in carrying around 1 100-round magazine and carrying around 10 10-round magazines.

Would you also say, then, that there is no difference between a one-round magazine and a ten-round magazine?

If you want to continue the pissing match, O'Bill, that's OK by me. You were the one who was attempting to force people to a definition, i doubt not in order to launch the kind of idiotic attack in which Maporche is now engaged. But the fact of the matter is, whether or not you an Maporche want to whine about it, that Congress has defined assault rifle to their satisfaction. Get over it.

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

How much of the definitions are built up around the ability to surprise a large group of people and cut them down quickly?

And how often does 'a large group of people' get 'cut down quickly'? Does it happen enough to nessecitate this absurd law?

The real issue here is that the same people who want to ban assult rifles, would have no problem banning ALL firearms from citizens. They pick on assult rifles because they think they can get a small win, followed by another win, followed by another.

Refer to my point about the simularites between anti-gun and pro-choice people.

Does it matter that it only happens every now and then? Only rarely are groups of people killed by explosives in America. Should we legalize them, then?

You discount the idea that the current restrictions are one of the reasons that it doesn't happen that often...

Your 'real issue' is untrue. I want to ban assualt rifles (and pistols), and I own two long rifles and a shotgun myself. You are lumping people together for no good reason, and also Appealing to Extremes; not a great argument to make.

Cycloptichorn

There is not currently a restriction.

And when has it happened? Show me examples where people have been cut down by a hundred round magazine.

You can buy a hundred-round magazine for a weapon here in the US?

No?

Then it seems there ARE currently restrictions, and I'll be hard-pressed to find evidence that a hundred-round magazine mowed down a bunch of people.

The dems lining up on that side of the AWB issue is just like the reps on the abortion issue. Stupid.

cjhsa wrote:

The dems lining up on that side of the AWB issue is just like the reps on the abortion issue. Stupid.

I agree....I thought my post about the similarities was pretty interesting, but apparently no one else did

There is little to no difference in CARRYING around 10 1-round magazines (which don't exist) and carrying around 1 10-round magazine.

The difference lies in having to reload more often, which I've already explained takes time (3 seconds).

OVERWHELMING TACTICAL SUPERIORITY
The C-MAG transforms basic rifles into tactically superior light automatic weapons, delivering increased firepower and lethality. Typically, this enhanced capability allows troops to move forward more quickly, covering more terrain without having to stop and reload. Similarly, SWAT teams are better prepared for missions where the number and strength of the objective is undetermined.
HIGH DEGREE OF PREPAREDNESS
The C-MAG makes superior firepower readily available to tactical units, increasing their mission effectiveness and range of options. With it's indefinite preloaded storage capability, the C-MAG can be stockpiled for rapid deployment in arsenals, ammunition depots, and in support and fighting vehicles.
COMBAT MULTIPLIER
The C-MAG makes superior firepower readily available to tactical units, increasing their mission effectiveness and range of options. With it's indefinite preloaded storage capability, the C-MAG can be stockpiled for rapid deployment in arsenals, ammunition depots, and in support and fighting vehicles.

It's not that you need a gun for deer hunting, you need overwhelming tactical superiority.

Clearly, the folks who know about these sorts of things believe that there is a big difference between small magazines and big magazines. Why you still deny that there is a difference, on the other hand, remains a mystery.

I find it interesting that you are willing to trust these people "who know about these sorts of things" on this instance, but distrust them on let's say the effect of an armed populace on violent crime....but I digress.

Once again, I do not deny a difference. I deny a significant difference (maybe I didn't make that clear, but I'm pretty sure I did). Not having to reload 10 times will save approx 30 seconds, that seems pretty insignificant to me.

The other BIG problem that exists is lugging around a 100 round DRUM would make firing your weapon extremly difficult, very heavy, and probably greatly reduce your accuracy while 'cutting through a crowd'.

O'Bill claims, without justification, that i am clearly "out of my depth," because i don't buy his argument which claims there is fundamentally no difference between hunting rifles and assault rifles.

I was also gratified to see Joe go to the trouble of pointing out to Maporche the absurdity of his claims about magazine sizes. It's too bad that it was necessary to do so, but it is good that he did.