Bill introduced to limit high-capacity ammo clips

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

No, it's a bit more personal than that.

It's clear that you have a problem with guns. That's fine, You don't, however, have the right to impose your fears on me. And when you try I'm going to fight against it.

Yes, actually, I do have a right within our democratic system to voice my concerns and impose them on you provided there's a good enough reason to, and I think a threat to my safety and the safety of others is a good enough reason to. I also don't have a problems with guns, like I said, I have a probelm with people owning assault weapons and other firearm technology that goes beyond hunting and home defense.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Oooh, is this the part where anyone who owns an assault rifle is called a violent, homicidal nutjob? :D

racer8dan

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. While I wouldn't call them homicidal nutjobs, I would question the state of mind of people who feel the need to own an assault weapon for personal use. Beyond that, I have conversed at great length with the user in question and I don't trust him as far as I can throw William Perry. The fact that he specifically, not just anybody, owns an assault rifle scares me.

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

theone86

Why is my state of mind questionable? Because it isn't YOUR state of mind?

Country% homicides with firearmsFirearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.Non-firearm homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.Overall homicide rate
per 100,000 pop.Australia 16 0.31 1.26 1.57 Azerbaijan 8 0.22 2.59 2.81 Barbados 40 3.00 4.49 7.49 Belarus 33 3.31 6.82 10.13 Bulgaria 19 0.77 3.3 4.07 Canada[24] 34 0.54 1.04 1.58 Chile 11 0.18 1.37 1.55 Colombia 85 51.8 10.9 62.7 Costa Rica[24] 51 3.38 3.19 6.57 Denmark 24 0.26 0.83 1.09 England & Wales[24] 8 0.12 1.33 1.45 Estonia 13 1.53 8.92 10.45 Finland[25] 19 0.43 1.94 2.19 Germany 40 0.47 0.70 1.17 Guatemala 75 6.97 25.5 25.47 Hungary 21 0.44 1.61 2.05 India[24] 25 0.93 2.04 2.97 Ireland[24] 24 0.32 1.01 1.33 Latvia 11 1.3 10 11.3 Lithuania 18 2.24 10 12.3 Macedonia 36 1.28 2.31 3.59 Mexico 21 3.7 14.1 17.8 Moldova, Republic of 5 0.47 8.13 8.59 New Zealand 13 0.18 1.17 1.36 Paraguay 38 7.4 12 19.4 Poland 7 0.43 5.61 6.04 Portugal 25 0.85 2.45 3.31 Qatar[24] 25 0.18 0.53 0.71 Singapore 3 0.03 0.92 0.95 Slovakia 45 2.17 2.65 4.81 Slovenia 25 0.6 1.81 2.41 Spain 16 0.25 1.25 1.5 Switzerland 37 0.56 0.96 1.52 Ukraine 4 0.35 8.93 9.27 United States[24]652.971.584.55Uruguay 35 2.52 4.61 7.13 Zimbabwe 40 4.75 7.24 12

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. While I wouldn't call them homicidal nutjobs, I would question the state of mind of people who feel the need to own an assault weapon for personal use. Beyond that, I have conversed at great length with the user in question and I don't trust him as far as I can throw William Perry. The fact that he specifically, not just anybody, owns an assault rifle scares me.

theone86

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. While I wouldn't call them homicidal nutjobs, I would question the state of mind of people who feel the need to own an assault weapon for personal use. Beyond that, I have conversed at great length with the user in question and I don't trust him as far as I can throw William Perry. The fact that he specifically, not just anybody, owns an assault rifle scares me.

DivergeUnify

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Don't you consider the lives of even a few people to be more important than a little extra convenience for you at the shooting range?

Really, I see this legislation as something with a clear upside and essentially no downside. Not sure why anyone would oppose it.

chessmaster1989

3 seconds pause in gunfire is far from "pointless." If you were in a public location and someone open-fired, are you telling me you wouldn't want 3 seconds of reload time every 10 bullets? 3 seconds is time enough to get to cover or attempt to tackle the gunman. It's far from pointless.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]I own an "assault Rifle", am I nuts as well?

racer8dan

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] What's the up side? Up to 10 people( assuming a bullet per person) can be killed in one salvo, another 3 seconds, another 10 people can be killed. It's literally pointless. Perhaps if gunfights with the law were more common I could see a purpose. But someone with a gun and ammo is still a person with a gun and ammo. People are defenseless to that. 10 shots isn't going to change thatDivergeUnify

3 seconds pause in gunfire is far from "pointless." If you were in a public location and someone open-fired, are you telling me you wouldn't want 3 seconds of reload time every 10 bullets? 3 seconds is time enough to get to cover or attempt to tackle the gunman. It's far from pointless.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

It's clear that you have a problem with guns. That's fine, You don't, however, have the right to impose your fears on me. And when you try I'm going to fight against it.

AutoPilotOn

Yes, actually, I do have a right within our democratic system to voice my concerns and impose them on you provided there's a good enough reason to, and I think a threat to my safety and the safety of others is a good enough reason to. I also don't have a problems with guns, like I said, I have a probelm with people owning assault weapons and other firearm technology that goes beyond hunting and home defense.

Well, frankly, I find cars to be fairly wasteful and inefficient and I think if we tried we could find an easier way for people to get around, but that's beside the point. For one, if car safety could be tied to one variable such as speed then I'm sure they would impose the regulations you discussed. However, there are many numerous variables that affect road safety, some of the slowest drivers I've encountered were some of the most dangerous. Two, cars are designed for transportation, guns are designed to kill. Three, if it's a matter of recreation why not mandate that such weapons be kept at a firing range, or that ammunition for them be kept there?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. While I wouldn't call them homicidal nutjobs, I would question the state of mind of people who feel the need to own an assault weapon for personal use. Beyond that, I have conversed at great length with the user in question and I don't trust him as far as I can throw William Perry. The fact that he specifically, not just anybody, owns an assault rifle scares me.

theone86

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

As a Canadian, I've always dealt with ammo restrictions with my guns, and have never really had a problem with it. From a hunting perspective, people I've been with who have been using guns with less ammo have just put more effort into picking their shots. This has resulted in fewer wounded animals and hasn't worsened the hunt for any of us. I've never felt the need for a larger clip in anything I've used.

This being said, the bill seems rather pointless. As it has already been stated this likely won't slow criminals from getting larger magazines for their guns. It's also going to inconvenience some law abiding gun owners who will suddenly have magazines that are useless to them if they wish to continue to follow the law.The bill seems to be a waste of legislative time and effort more than anything else.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

3 seconds pause in gunfire is far from "pointless." If you were in a public location and someone open-fired, are you telling me you wouldn't want 3 seconds of reload time every 10 bullets? 3 seconds is time enough to get to cover or attempt to tackle the gunman. It's far from pointless.

racer8dan

In addition: if someone is premeditating mass murder, and they really feel this is going to inconvenience them. They could also do things like carry a knife, or even a second gun. There are so many options for someone who wants to go out and kill. A gun with a lot of ammo just happens to be the easiest, but that doesn't mean the other options are difficult

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]I own an "assault Rifle", am I nuts as well?

DivergeUnify

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] What's the up side? Up to 10 people( assuming a bullet per person) can be killed in one salvo, another 3 seconds, another 10 people can be killed. It's literally pointless. Perhaps if gunfights with the law were more common I could see a purpose. But someone with a gun and ammo is still a person with a gun and ammo. People are defenseless to that. 10 shots isn't going to change thatDivergeUnify

3 seconds pause in gunfire is far from "pointless." If you were in a public location and someone open-fired, are you telling me you wouldn't want 3 seconds of reload time every 10 bullets? 3 seconds is time enough to get to cover or attempt to tackle the gunman. It's far from pointless.

Of course it's relevant if someone tries to tackle a gunman, I have no idea why you'd say otherwise. Even if they don't successfully take them down and disarm them, they distract them and give other people time to escape. Think about it, if someone slams into you, you're going to stop shooting at other people and do something about the person that's trying to tackle you.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] 3 seconds is a very generous number- meaning some idiot wouldn't need more than 3 seconds. I'm pretty sure the average person could reload in 1.5 seconds. And think about it. The person isn't going to be running and gunning as if they have 30 rounds. 10 rounds is easier to keep count of, and thus easier to set yourself up for when you have to reload. I don't care if someone gets the balls to tackle someone with a pistol. Chances are that person doesn't know how to disarm them, or even how to really successfully take the gunman down.DivergeUnify

In addition: if someone is premeditating mass murder, and they really feel this is going to inconvenience them. They could also do things like carry a knife, or even a second gun. There are so many options for someone who wants to go out and kill. A gun with a lot of ammo just happens to be the easiest, but that doesn't mean the other options are difficult

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="theone86"]

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

wstfld

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

You too seem to be very confused. Do some research into why, exactly, we have the right to bear arms. It has nothing at all to do with "defending your home or going hunting." American education system FTL.

On3ShotOneKill

Maybe you should learn to take your own advice. The Second Amednment was included in the Bill of Rights because they never wanted American citizens to be disallowed a way to forcefully rebel against an unjust government or occuyping force. The problem is when the Amednment was drafted firearms were a primitive technology, guns back then compared to today's guns are almost the same as knives compared to today's guns. They took a long time to reload, they were inaccurate and unweildly, and their only useful purposes were hunting and home defense. If a large enough group of people banded together they might be useful in such a situation, but that was also at a time long before our military-industrial complex had advanced as far as it has today.

Handguns today are like personal A-bombs, the A-bomb allowed militaries to kill thousands of people by pressing a button and the gun technology of today allows anyone to kill anyone else with the pull of a trigger. We have gone from having to pack gunpowder into the barrel before every shot to having weapons commerically available that require you only to snap in a round of hundreds of bullets and pull the trigger, there's no comparison between the technology of the eighteenth century and today and no guarantee that the original intent of the Amendment would have included modern firearms. Furthermore, the original intent of the Amendment is a moot point anyways, as anything commercially available is not enough to forcibly rise up against the government given the level of technology employed in the military and intelligence agencies, and the sheer size of our military force. The original intent of the Amendment is moot, today's technology makes it a million times easier to kill citizens and a million times harder to oppose an unjust government.

Saying that small arms would be ineffective against a large mechanized military force demonstrates that you do not have too much military insight (Not meant to offend). Fighting an insurgency in a heavily urbanized country (such as the US) or any country for that matter, is a completely different ball game than fighting a conventional military. Unless a military is willing to engage in a total annihilation policy, they cannot differentiate between civilians and insurgents who dress just like civilians. Because of this they must show retraint in terms of who they kill, in order to gain the trust of the population. That is if they are not trying to kill everyone they see. The insurgents will use hit and run tactics, and make improvised weapons, in order to counter act the superior firepower and numbers of the invading or occupying force. Clear examples of an insurgency are the Soviet-Afghan War, Vietnam War, current Iraq War, current Afghan War, both Chechen Wars, the Boar Wars, etc. So saying "guns don't matter compared to tanks or jets" is ridiculous and COMPLETELY false.

Second, the idea that the American military would be willing to kill their own people and family for some politicians is laughable, so that argument is moot for both sides.

I believe that in most of those rebellions the civilians were supplied with weapons beyond what is commercially available in the United States, such as RPGs. In terms of your last statement, if the American military is unwilling to kill their own people then what is the use of owning guns for that purpose anyways? If there ever is a group that is willing to threaten to use guns to overthrow the military knowing full well that there will be no military resistance then it's a forgone conclusion that the people with the guns will get their way and the democratic process has been subverted. Finally, you're completely ignoring the non-military aspect of this, intelligence agencies, counter-terrorism groups. I doubt very much that any group even coming close to attempting any type of armed insurgency would fly beneath the radar of such government organizations.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. While I wouldn't call them homicidal nutjobs, I would question the state of mind of people who feel the need to own an assault weapon for personal use. Beyond that, I have conversed at great length with the user in question and I don't trust him as far as I can throw William Perry. The fact that he specifically, not just anybody, owns an assault rifle scares me.

theone86

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

3 seconds pause in gunfire is far from "pointless." If you were in a public location and someone open-fired, are you telling me you wouldn't want 3 seconds of reload time every 10 bullets? 3 seconds is time enough to get to cover or attempt to tackle the gunman. It's far from pointless.

chessmaster1989

Of course it's relevant if someone tries to tackle a gunman, I have no idea why you'd say otherwise. Even if they don't successfully take them down and disarm them, they distract them and give other people time to escape. Think about it, if someone slams into you, you're going to stop shooting at other people and do something about the person that's trying to tackle you.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]I own an "assault Rifle", am I nuts as well?

On3ShotOneKill

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] 3 seconds is a very generous number- meaning some idiot wouldn't need more than 3 seconds. I'm pretty sure the average person could reload in 1.5 seconds. And think about it. The person isn't going to be running and gunning as if they have 30 rounds. 10 rounds is easier to keep count of, and thus easier to set yourself up for when you have to reload. I don't care if someone gets the balls to tackle someone with a pistol. Chances are that person doesn't know how to disarm them, or even how to really successfully take the gunman down.DivergeUnify

Of course it's relevant if someone tries to tackle a gunman, I have no idea why you'd say otherwise. Even if they don't successfully take them down and disarm them, they distract them and give other people time to escape. Think about it, if someone slams into you, you're going to stop shooting at other people and do something about the person that's trying to tackle you.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[QUOTE="wstfld"]I can run away from a knife dude and even if he has Steven Segal like knife-throwing skills its still only one chance at a maximum of 20ft. An assault rifle wielding guy could shoot at me from 200 yards away and have 30 chances at it. thegerg

It actually takes longer for someone to draw their weapon, raise it to fire, flip the safety (if it has one), pull a bead on a target at 25', and pull the trigger to place a round in that target than it does for a man to cover that 25' on foot and stick a knife in you. Keep in mind that most shootings take place at close range, not 200 yards.

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

Verge_6

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]I own an "assault Rifle", am I nuts as well?

DivergeUnify

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

Well no, not really. Killing someone with your hands is different than killing someone with a gun, like I said it's the A-bomb of personal armament. There's a certain type of detatchment with something that has such ease of use. Frankly, I don't see any reason why someone would attack me with a knife, except maybe to mug me and in that case I'd actually prefer handing over my cash to them being shot. With a gun people don't need much of a reason, you get a normally stable person in a bad situation like being drunk and angry and they could shoot for no reason, or I could be harmed without them intending to harm me by a stray shot. It's the ease with which someone can kill another person that scares me most, noted behavioral patterns only compound my fear.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

racer8dan

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

Verge_6

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

wstfld

I knew this was going to come back up. As I recall, the last time there was a 10 round limit on magazines, it didn't deter any badguys from going about their business.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="theone86"]

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

theone86

Well no, not really. Killing someone with your hands is different than killing someone with a gun, like I said it's the A-bomb of personal armament. There's a certain type of detatchment with something that has such ease of use. Frankly, I don't see any reason why someone would attack me with a knife, except maybe to mug me and in that case I'd actually prefer handing over my cash to them being shot. With a gun people don't need much of a reason, you get a normally stable person in a bad situation like being drunk and angry and they could shoot for no reason, or I could be harmed without them intending to harm me by a stray shot. It's the ease with which someone can kill another person that scares me most, noted behavioral patterns only compound my fear.

If you don't see a reason for someone to attack you with a knife, then you shouldn't see a reason for them to attack you with a gun. And if you say no reason for you to be attacked, then I guess that logic is applicable to most other people( who aren't hoodrats), eliminating the threat of stray bullets

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

theone86

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

Well fully automatic weapons are pretty hard to get in the US. You need a special license for them (clas 3) and need to pay more money. Assault Rifle=/= Automatic. it only matters on how scary the weapon looks like.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

Chaos_HL21

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

Well fully automatic weapons are pretty hard to get in the US. You need a special license for them (clas 3) and need to pay more money. Assault Rifle=/= Automatic. it only matters on how scary the weapon looks like.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]Completely true, I don't know what is considered an "assault rifle", it's a term the media likes to use to give guns an intimidating reputation

racer8dan

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

theone86

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

There is no clear cut definition of an "assault rifle".

racer8dan

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

theone86

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

What?! Ridiculous. CONSTITUTION MOTHER F******!!!

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Guns earned themselves an intimidating reputation over, let's say, the past 500 years. wstfld

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]I own an "assault Rifle", am I nuts as well?

On3ShotOneKill

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

Verge_6

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

theone86

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

The term "assault rifle" is being thrown around alot here, and yet I would not be surprised if the objectionists in question really know what one truly is. POP QUIZ TIEM!

This here is a pic I found on the internet;

And this here is a pic of a rifle in my personal collection;

I ask you...which one is the real assault rifle?

thegerg

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

Wait. Are you saying that semi-automatic weapons are now assault rifles?

Did I ever say assault rifle? I said assault weapon, and by that I mean combat shotguns, SMGs, assault rifles, semi-automatics, and other weapons that have no practical applications beyond combat.