You can't freely buy an AK-47. The AK-47 is a machine gun and is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1938. What you are talking about is the semi-automatic clone of the AK-47. This is just like any other semi-automatic rifle, it just looks like an AK-47. Also, "assault rifle" refers to a select fire, or fully automatic weapon. The use of the words "assault rifle" in the media is nothing more than fear mongering scare tactics designed to bend the populace to the liberal agenda.sergeriver wrote:
I agree with you that some weapons could create confusion, but when you can freely buy an AK-47, there's no doubt this assault rifle should not be used by civilians.Stingray24 wrote:
This is a major problem with the gun rights/control/ban debate - inaccurate terms. "Military style" could be applied to a semi-automatic .22 rifle with a curved magazine, a folding stock, and a bipod though it is by no means an assault weapon. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon capable of fully automotic fire. The appearance of almost any firearm can be modified to make it "look" like a weapon used in the military. Yet it does nothing to change the manner in which it fires. Judging a weapon by it's looks is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yet it keeps popping up in the gun debate.sergeriver wrote:
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons.
Edit: Not a swipe at you Serge. I know you're just trying to set the framework for the debate.
Poll
Rights You Support
| Gun Rights + Abortion | 27% | 27% - 39 | ||||
| Gun Control + Pro-Life | 10% | 10% - 15 | ||||
| Gun Rights + Pro-Life | 19% | 19% - 28 | ||||
| Gun Control + Abortion | 41% | 41% - 59 | ||||
| Total: 141 | ||||||
The AK-47 is an assault rifle, but if you know it better than Kalashnikov...ok. Maybe Kalashnikov is part of the liberal agenda, lol.Bonesaw wrote:
You can't freely buy an AK-47. The AK-47 is a machine gun and is regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1938. What you are talking about is the semi-automatic clone of the AK-47. This is just like any other semi-automatic rifle, it just looks like an AK-47. Also, "assault rifle" refers to a select fire, or fully automatic weapon. The use of the words "assault rifle" in the media is nothing more than fear mongering scare tactics designed to bend the populace to the liberal agenda.sergeriver wrote:
I agree with you that some weapons could create confusion, but when you can freely buy an AK-47, there's no doubt this assault rifle should not be used by civilians.Stingray24 wrote:
This is a major problem with the gun rights/control/ban debate - inaccurate terms. "Military style" could be applied to a semi-automatic .22 rifle with a curved magazine, a folding stock, and a bipod though it is by no means an assault weapon. An assault rifle is a select fire weapon capable of fully automotic fire. The appearance of almost any firearm can be modified to make it "look" like a weapon used in the military. Yet it does nothing to change the manner in which it fires. Judging a weapon by it's looks is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yet it keeps popping up in the gun debate.
Edit: Not a swipe at you Serge. I know you're just trying to set the framework for the debate.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/ka50.html
I know what an AK-47 is lol. Its a MACHINE GUN. You cannot buy a MACHINE GUN in this country without going through alot of paperwork and background checks. You can however own SEMIAUTOMATIC copies of the AK-47, such as the Romanian WASR-10, the SAR-1, ect.....
did you read that link? check its rate of fire, its 600 rpm. its a machine gun.
http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/models/listBonesaw wrote:
did you read that link? check its rate of fire, its 600 rpm. its a machine gun.
An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. Assault rifles are categorized between light machine guns, intended more for sustained automatic fire in a support role, and submachine guns, which fire a handgun cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. Assault rifles are the standard small arms in most modern armies, having largely replaced or supplemented larger, more powerful battle rifles, such as the World War II-era M1 Garand and Tokarev SVT. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle and the AK-47.Bonesaw wrote:
I know what an AK-47 is lol. Its a MACHINE GUN. You cannot buy a MACHINE GUN in this country without going through alot of paperwork and background checks. You can however own SEMIAUTOMATIC copies of the AK-47, such as the Romanian WASR-10, the SAR-1, ect.....
Umm buddy you're just proving my point. An AK-47 is a selective fire rifle. You can't get that legally in the US at all without going through 6 months of paperwork.
What I meant about the "liberal agenda" was that every time you hear on the news that someone used an "assault rifle" in a crime, it turned out to be a semi-auto only rifle. They just use the term "assault rifle" to make people think "machine gun" and "illegal-scaryness"
What I meant about the "liberal agenda" was that every time you hear on the news that someone used an "assault rifle" in a crime, it turned out to be a semi-auto only rifle. They just use the term "assault rifle" to make people think "machine gun" and "illegal-scaryness"
My cousin has a Romanian copy. Semiautomatic (one round per trigger pull) but looks exactly like a regular AK-47. It is not an assault rifle because it is not capable of shooting full auto (holding trigger fires the weapon until the magazine is empty). The difference is the manner in which it fires, not it's appearance or caliber.
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. 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
A common public misconception persists that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons, however, were unaffected by the ban, and have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement.
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. 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
A common public misconception persists that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons, however, were unaffected by the ban, and have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-05-02 18:38:05)
At least you clarified your definition in the OP, but it doesn't change the fact that both exist in the US. Our citizens have rights to personal firearms to a small extent, under the faux-shield of gun-control...just as we have the right to drive under a certain list of conditions.sergeriver wrote:
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons. They also support measures intended to curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun, limits on the number of guns a person can buy and raising the age limit for gun ownership.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Doesn't that make it only moderately different than gun rights? In the US, we have both.sergeriver wrote:
Legal with laws that make sense. No military weapons allowed f.i.
It's like asking if you prefer driver rights or driver control.
If I were given an "other" option, I would choose "selective gun-rights/primarily pro-life."
you are 100% correct. It is amazing how little anti-gunners actually know about guns.Stingray24 wrote:
My cousin has a Romanian copy. Semiautomatic (one round per trigger pull) but looks exactly like a regular AK-47. It is not an assault rifle because it is not capable of shooting full auto (holding trigger fires the weapon until the magazine is empty). The difference is the manner in which it fires, not it's appearance or caliber.
---------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
Semi-automatic rifles, including commercial versions of the AR-15, and "automatic" rifles limited to firing single shots are not assault rifles as they are not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons or rifles with very limited capacity fixed magazines are also generally not considered assault rifles.
Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms. 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
A common public misconception persists that the assault weapons ban restricted weapons capable of fully automatic fire, such as assault rifles and machine guns. Fully automatic weapons, however, were unaffected by the ban, and have been continuously and heavily regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed. Subsequent laws such as the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 also affected the importation and civilian ownership of fully automatic firearms, the latter fully prohibiting sales of newly-manufactured machine guns to non-law enforcement.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 3#p1395663
Please refer to the above post if any of you would like to learn some basics about firearms.
Please refer to the above post if any of you would like to learn some basics about firearms.
I've never understood the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't support Military Weapons.sergeriver wrote:
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons. They also support measures intended to curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun, limits on the number of guns a person can buy and raising the age limit for gun ownership.
Military weapons are exactly the weapons that the Second Amendment is supposed to protect, and their are Supreme Court decisions that back this up.
I need to find the exact wording of the case, but I don't feel like doing it right now.
Basically it's from a court ruling from the 30's
The case revolved around a man who had a Sawed off Shotgun. The court ruled that a Sawed off shotgun had no protection from the Second Amendment because the Military had no use for such a weapon. The ruling basically says that Military Weapons are really the only ones that are protected by the Second Amendment.
I think the guys last name was Miller.ts-pulsar wrote:
I've never understood the argument that the Second Amendment doesn't support Military Weapons.sergeriver wrote:
Gun control advocates believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are otherwise known as assault weapons. They also support measures intended to curb gun-related violence, such as mandatory child safety locks, background checks on those wishing to purchase a gun, limits on the number of guns a person can buy and raising the age limit for gun ownership.
Military weapons are exactly the weapons that the Second Amendment is supposed to protect, and their are Supreme Court decisions that back this up.
I need to find the exact wording of the case, but I don't feel like doing it right now.
Basically it's from a court ruling from the 30's
The case revolved around a man who had a Sawed off Shotgun. The court ruled that a Sawed off shotgun had no protection from the Second Amendment because the Military had no use for such a weapon. The ruling basically says that Military Weapons are really the only ones that are protected by the Second Amendment.
Great posts Stingray, Bonesaw, and ts-pulsar
I had this same argument with my aunt when she said the Clinton gun ban was for Machine guns and I could not convince her otherwise after telling her pretty much what you two have said.
Serge you need to check your facts on the NRA, gun shows, and safety locks.sergriver wrote:
Gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, argue that these and other proposals infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. They maintain that bans on the sale of certain types of weapons have not proved effective in reducing violent crime, and that proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are designed to eliminate gun shows themselves. Some gun manufacturers have volunteered support for safety locks, but the NRA has criticized safety locks for placing an undue burden on gun manufacturers without a proven benefit to the public.
1. They maintain that bans on the sale of certain types of weapons have not proved effective in reducing violent crime.
This is true after the Clinton Gun ban proved ineffective in reducing crime after ten years and the guns banned were used in less than 1% of all gun crimes.
2. That proposals for stricter background checks at gun shows are designed to eliminate gun shows themselves.
This is also true since over 90% of all the guns sold already go through a dealer and they have to run a background check or they lose their License and face criminal charges. The other sales by individuals that you would make get a background check would then have to go through a dealer which cost more. If by stricter you mean a 3 to 7 day waiting period then the NRA is really against this since gun shows are only on the weekends these really would put gun shows out of business.
3. The NRA has criticized safety locks for placing an undue burden on gun manufacturers without a proven benefit to the public.
What the NRA criticized about safety locks is that a homeowner being forced to keep his gun locked up separate from the ammo and with a trigger lock in place. This renders the gun totally useless for self-defense. Almost every manufacture if not every one already supplies trigger locks with their guns so that is not an undue burden to them.
Last edited by JG1567JG (2007-05-02 23:41:20)
What do guns have to do with abortions?
Gun Control + Abortion.
Gun Control + Abortion
So do I, but i am confused because i will soon be voting conservative.blisteringsilence wrote:
I support the rights of the individual over the rights of the masses every time. Go classic liberalism.
i read this as "right you supports, which combination do you prefer"
and was going to answer tear gas, then SAW.
and was going to answer tear gas, then SAW.
anarchy
Pro-gun rights and pro-abortion.
Let people make their own decisions -- except for crazy people.
Let people make their own decisions -- except for crazy people.