NRA trains members to attack enemies without mercy

Thats not my point, never ws. My point was that cj has another thread about Scary Black Weapons--all semis of course. Yet I asked him for the names of the weapons shown and hes ignored me . I wanted to see whether there was not a conversion kit and a 30 shot clip available for each of these guns. In most cases, if theyre gas or recoil operated, theres a kit to turn them into full autos.

The NRA, in its mindless zeal to promote any kind of gun, expresses its true belief in the valuelessness of our kids lives by standing in the way of any legislature that attempts to address gun crime.

They make it a Constitutional issue (but screw the lives of people lost as collateral victims)

and they say that they really feel that semis that look like assault autos (and which can be converted to autos) are "hunting" weapons. Thats utter bullshit.

3The NRA is even against the BRady Bill, which although imperfect, is held up in derision, as if to say, "See heres a Bill that doesnt do anything to stop the flow of illegal guns" The NRA has been consistantly against any legislation that attempts to put some sanity into our cultural obsession with guns .

If the assault weapons are so like the others , why not just buy the others, and not make some lame excuses that we gotta have more assault weapons.

but I see no reason for owning guns that can easily be made into fully automatic weapons if Im a hunter .

Ive been consistent. What a gun looks like is silly. The guns "assaultness" to me, is whether it can be made full auto and outfitted with larger clips. Guns that can be so modified should be banned.

Ive not deviated from this point and nobody not inclined so has been preaching about how a gun "looks" as the important point . Thats not logical IMHO.

If making a gun look more lethal by imitating a full auto look, is your only point, its another example of how youve bought into marketing by gun mfrs. The hunting public didnt start clamoring for M-1 Garands or M-16/s or Techs for deer.

These imitated guns were first producedby the companies, then the nimrods began owning them and discovered how easy a conversion can be accomplished.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I think this is the big boy on the block. This beauty from Holland and Holland will fire a .700 Nitro Express... and make a 30.06 look like a bb gun.

Just why, apart from taking down aircraft, would you need one?

I think it was cj who asked me how we can defend ourself with a gun we cant own....

well gun ownership in the uk is not illegal. Its just much more tightly regulated than in the US. Most people do not have guns at home, and most people want nothing to do with them. However quite a few people have shot guns which have of course to be licensed and securely contained at home. (My father in law gave his gun away when he had to build a safe for it).

You know I really do find the attitude towards guns in the US strange. Ok years ago America was a largely rural country and the right to bear arms came from the fact there as no standing army.

But somehow it seems that constitutional right has been exploited by vested interests for private profit, to the detriment of society at large.

However you've had plenty of opportunity to change things and have not.

well thats how it seems to me. The more guns in circulation the more they are fired the more accidents and violent crime.

What are you supposed to do with a gun, just polish it?

And the really bad guys, knowing the householder may be armed, is more likely to carry a bigger gun and use it first.

Thomas wrote:

Is it your position, then, that Howitzers fall within the scope of the right to bear arms? The Supreme Court's test in Miller would seem to imply it, since Howitzers, unlike sawed-off shotguns, do bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

The second amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. So the interpretation of the amendment must be consistent with that fact. At the time of the drafting of the bill of rights, individuals did not possess artillery (and, let's hope, they still don't).

The drafters of the second amendment, therefore, did not intend for the amendment to protect the right of individuals to possess howitzers, and subsequent judicial opinions and federal gun laws confirm that interpretation of the amendment.

cjhsa wrote:

It doesn't surprise me that the Illinois anti-gun nazis are afraid of militias. Michigan, after all, has one.

You have a breath-taking ability to display blind stupidity. Presserj v. Illinois came before the court in 1886, and so it bears no relation to the gun control measures of this or the last century. Futhermore, Presser sued Illinios because the state regulated the militia, not because Illinois prohibited the militia.

Yeah, we all know about the Michigan militia. It would be priceless to see them in action, to see how fast they'd throw down their guns and run for it.

And that's not the end of it. It seems to me that the same reasoning would plausibly extend to machine guns, bazookas, hand grenades, and a long list of other equipment: Equipment small enough that people would frequently operate it individually in a war, but so far out even the NRA doesn't say they should be legal. And that's a pretty tough standard of far-out-ness.

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you suggesting that howitzers did not exist at the time of the drafting of the second amendment?

Actually I had mentally moved on to bazookas, hand grenades, and machine guns. How about them?

Militia men were expected to show up with their rifles or muskets. Bazookas and machine guns, therefore, would not be "militia-weapon-like" enough to warrant protection under the second amendment. Hand grenades existed at the time of the adoption of the second amendment: if the drafters wanted to include hand grenades as "arms," they could have specified them.

Google is an amazing thing..

Q: What is the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and semi-automatic assault weapons?

A: Sporting rifles and assault weapons are two distinct classes of firearms.

While semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semi-automatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire.

Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip,

and because of their design, a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

Opponents of the ban argue that such weapons only "look scary." However, because they were designed for military purposes, assault weapons are equipped with combat hardware, such as silencers, folding stocks and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns.

Assault weapons are also designed for rapid-fire

and many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 more bullets to be fired without reloading.

So there is a good reason why these features on high-powered weapons should frighten the public.

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following combat features:

* A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

* A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

* A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

* A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

* A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

You could also look at the law itself to get the definitions.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

The question remains: How do you reasonably define "Assault Rifle"?

Let's start with the definition in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. (It has since been repealed.) You tell me what's unreasonable about it.

(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means-- `(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as-- `(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); `(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; `(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); `(iv) Colt AR-15; `(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; `(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12; `(vii) Steyr AUG; `(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and `(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; `(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a bayonet mount; `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and `(v) a grenade launcher; `(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of-- `(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; `(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; `(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; `(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and `(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and `(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of-- `(i) a folding or telescoping stock; `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; `(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and `(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.

Some formating lost -- sorry.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Parados; your list amounts to accessories that fit hunting rifles and 'assault rifle's' alike.

Your hunting rifle has a screw end on its barrel for a silencer? Your hunting rifle has a folding stock? Your hunting rifle has a protruding pistol grip? Your hunting rifle has a bayonet attachment? Please inform us what the make and model of your "hunting" rifle is.

Folding stocks allow you to hide large rifles under your jacket. Illegal for the same reason as sawed-offs.

Thanks for the video Bill.

It really doesn't prove much of anything. I wouldn't say a dune buggy is a camero just because I can take the engine out of the camero and put it in a dune buggy. Nor does it make a dune buggy street legal because it has the same engine.

Just because an assualt rifle shares some of the same parts as a hunting rifle doesn't change what makes them different.

The differences between your average deer rifle and an assault rifle are not merely cosmetic in nature. They affect the way the weapon handles and can be used.

An assualt rifle is designed to be controlled while fired on full automatic

or controlled when fired from positions other than the shoulder.

This information was on the first site I gave in answering the "reasonable" definition question.

Just changing a deer rifle to fully automatic will not give it the same effectiveness as a fully automatic assualt rifle.

When a weapon is fired it recoils. An assault rifle is designed to reduce this recoil and allow the user better control to keep the barrel pointed at the target.

That video was not converting a hunting rifle to an assault rifle. It was taking parts from a hunting rifle and putting them in an assault rifle.
There was no conversion because the parts were pretty substantial.

I could make a video that shows me taking the steering wheel from a camero, removing all the parts but the steering wheel and then bringing in parts to put around that steering wheel to create an 18 wheeler. It doesn't make a camero essentially the same thing as an 18 wheeler. It only shows they have some of the same parts. Its nothing more than a simple magician's trick using misdirection.

Baldi, The M16 is an assault rifle. "Assault" rifle has little or nothing to do with the mode of fire. It has components that make it one.

or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

Setanta wrote:

or why anyone needs ammunition which will penetrate a police officer's kevlar vest.

To protect against criminals who wear Kevlar.