Military Power

Well, there seems to be much debate going around about "the future of the right to bear arms". Feel free to discuss, but stay civil as this tends to be a rather touchy subject.

Long overdue for reform. It was compiled at a time of black powder and flintlock muskets-Not high velocity automatic weapons. With 14,000 gun related deaths in the US every year, just how long will it take (and how many more families destroyed) before it is recognized that such an archaic concept has no place in the 21st century.

Hobilar wrote:Long overdue for reform. It was compiled at a time of black powder and flintlock muskets-Not high velocity automatic weapons. With 14,000 gun related deaths in the US every year, just how long will it take (and how many more families destroyed) before it is recognized that such an archaic concept has no place in the 21st century.

First, I would like to point out that the Second Amendment was very vital in preventing the Japanese from invading the U.S. in World War II. As Admiral Yamamoto is reputed to have said, “You cannot invade America. There is a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Second, unlike the UK, I can actually find breakdowns of US deaths (I suppose the government of the UK doesn't want anyone to know things). The Estimated US population in July 2002 was 280,562,489. Total Number of Deaths in 2002 were 2,403,351 with 28,663 of those (1.19% of total deaths and .001% of total population) being firearms related, while 43,354 (1.8% of total deaths) were due to Motor Vehicle Accidents. Looks to me like we need to ban motor vehicles before we start changing the freedoms that our country was founded on. And do note, the aforementioned Firearms Statistics Include Gang Warfare (who are going to kill each other regardless, and to be quite honest, probably with guns), Self Defense Shootings (so either they kill or be killed, either way, someone is dead) and Criminals Killed by Police ("Stop! Or I'll yell stop again!"). And before you start talking about accidental deaths...

For the same time period...
Total Number of Accidental Deaths - 97,900
Motor Vehicle - 43,354 - 44.3%
Unspecified nontransport accidents - 17,437 - 17.8%
Falls - 13,322 - 13.6%
Poisoning and Noxious Substances - 12,757 - 13.0%
Drowning - 3,842 - 3.9%
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames - 3,377 - 3.4%
Other Land Transport Accidents - 1,492 - 1.5%
Complications of Med/Surg Care - 3,059 - 3.1%
Accidental Discharge of Firearms - 776 - 0.8%

So, less than 1 percent of all accidental deaths in 2002 were due to firearms, over 3 times that number were because of doctors and well over 50% were due to transportation of some sort.

The UK and the United States share a common origin as to the right to bear arms. However, over the course of the 20th century, the UK gradually implemented tighter regulation of the civilian ownership of firearms through the enactment of the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts leading to the current outright ban on the ownership of all automatic, and most self-loading, firearms in the UK. The ownership of breech-loading handguns is, in particular, also very tightly controlled and effectively limited (other than in Northern Ireland) to those persons who may require such a handgun for the non routine humane killing of injured or dangerous animals. On the other hand, Switzerland Requires all males over a certain age (I forget off hand what that age is, but I think it is 16). That being said, Switzerland has a lower homicide rate per 100,000 people than the UK (or at least England and Wales). How do you explain that, especially if guns are so evil?

I am only going to say this much. I happen to know a Liberal attorney, who I asked to look up anything related to the 2nd Amendment. He said that civilian rights to own firearms will never be able to be taken away. I have no idea why so many people are worried about this. If they ever tried to take them away, there would be another civil war. There are too many people in this country who own firearms, reload ammunition and most of those firearms are not even registered. Washington, D.C. would be pushing themselves to extinction if they would ever walk down this road.

Hobilar wrote:Long overdue for reform. It was compiled at a time of black powder and flintlock muskets-Not high velocity automatic weapons. With 14,000 gun related deaths in the US every year, just how long will it take (and how many more families destroyed) before it is recognized that such an archaic concept has no place in the 21st century.

I agree with you Hobilar that it was compiled in the time of black powder firearms, and also in a time where every person who owned a firearm should report for duty to fight the American Revolution, and also any future aggression. I highly disagree with individuals rights to own automatic weapons. Why? Duuuh. You can kill more people that way. What sucks is that these 'gang-bangers' in the U.S. are the ones to blame for any aggression towards the 2nd Amendment. They think they can run their own little governments, and through the gun. They kill more people than an average disease. Those are the ones who should be sought to exterminate, not the 2nd Amendment.

But here is where I am going to disagree with you Hobilar. Many people in the United States hunt as a hobby, for food and conservation practices. These individuals (which are the majority of the ones who own firearms) are the ones who abide to the 2nd Amendment and also would never ever dream of hurting another person with a firearm. Plus, the gun only makes murder easier. It will still be very possible for people to commit murder and ruin lives by using a knife, bows, spears, glass bottles, 2x4's, cars, explosives, flammable materials, etc. You are going to have to ban all of those items in order to bring murder rights. Every politician in Washington should know this. The only reason why any attention is being paid to the 2nd Amendment, either good or bad, is because of people giving money and bribes to those politicians for personal gain. There will always be a battle between the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the anti-gun people. There will always be a battle.

Here's one more thing...

All of these people who want firearms banned from the United States...some of them have body-guards. Those body-guards most likely carry a sidearm. Are they not going against their beliefs right there? Plus, I also guarantee you that any of the ones who are against firearms would use one to save their life or their loved-ones lives. Then they would be going against their beliefs.

Cars kill more people in the US than guns, but I do not see anyone lining up for a national car ban.

The people who want to ban guns are the same kind of people as the monarchs and dictators that can be found all throughout history. It always comes in the guise of "keeping people safe" but it's real purpose is to rob citizens of their right to self preservation, and self defense. They become completely dependent on the government.
The massive banning of guns is often followed by genocide (Turkey, Armenia, Soviet Union, Germany, China, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia, just to name a few). More about this here (I think this is the original site); http://www.smsguns.com/index.htm

The primary reason that our forefathers included the second amendment in the constitution is to deter tyranny. They knew it was the only way to ensure freedom:
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

The only thing outlawing guns will achieve is making sure that only outlaws have guns. The government and police have already established that it is not reasonable to expect them to prevent most crimes. If only criminals have guns, and the government says it is not their job to protect you, then where does that leave defenseless citizens?

The number of infants murdered since Roe vs Wade, around 50 million, has exponentially exceeded any gun related deaths in the US to date. They can rationalize that a fetus is not a human (in the same way the Nazis rationalized that Jews were less than human) until it leaves the womb. If that isn't enough to scare you, many countries with socialized medicine are trying to pass legislation to euthanize senior citizens. They are bringing back the eugenics programs, and I would not be surprised to see compulsory sterilization laws reintroduced. All this they hide under the guise of "Progress" or "Helping the Enviroment." It would make more sense to have a ban on the government ceasing too much power than gun control, but by this point it is too late, the government will have become totalitarian, you will have no rights (not even the right to live), and you will be so drunken from government propaganda that you will not even know what a horrible quality of life you have (if they lie loud enough and often enough they can convince you that life is great). If you have not read George Orwell's 1984, you ought to. It may sound fantastic or improbable, but it can certainly happen.

Shadow wrote:Cars kill more people in the US than guns, but I do not see anyone lining up for a national car ban.

Shadow!!! It is awesome to see you back!

I agree with you here, cars do kill more people in the US than guns do. And back to AP's post, I believe he is correct on that one. No matter what happens, civilians in the US will always be allowed to keep their guns. No worries.

General Forestry wrote:And back to AP's post, I believe he is correct on that one. No matter what happens, civilians in the US will always be allowed to keep their guns. No worries.

Hmmm... I wonder if they said the same thing in the UK....

CrazyCatman wrote:The UK and the United States share a common origin as to the right to bear arms. However, over the course of the 20th century, the UK gradually implemented tighter regulation of the civilian ownership of firearms through the enactment of the 1968, 1988, 1994 and 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Acts leading to the current outright ban on the ownership of all automatic, and most self-loading, firearms in the UK.

CrazyCatman wrote:
On the other hand, Switzerland Requires all males over a certain age (I forget off hand what that age is, but I think it is 16). That being said, Switzerland has a lower homicide rate per 100,000 people than the UK (or at least England and Wales). How do you explain that, especially if guns are so evil?

If I remember correctly the European country that has the greatest number of firearms per head of population is Finland (obviously Santa Claus has been receiving a lot of death threats recently). Anyway, who in Switzerland would be daft enough to fire a gun-It would probably cause an avalanche (Grin).

What do the Swiss want firearms for? Are they afraid someone will try and steal their chocolate? Hunting Cuckoos perhaps

Hobilar is clearly in a silly mood this morning (You never would have guessed would you?)

Hobilar wrote:Hobilar is clearly in a silly mood this morning (You never would have guessed would you?)

Haha I couldn't tell.

AmericanPride wrote: I happen to know a Liberal attorney, who I asked to look up anything related to the 2nd Amendment. He said that civilian rights to own firearms will never be able to be taken away.

One should never say NEVER.

No doubt there were people in 1791 who said that there would NEVER be an end to Slavery. No doubt others said that there would NEVER be a time when Children as young as ten would not be sent down the coal mines or into cotton mills. No doubt some others would have said that women would NEVER be given the vote.

If public opinion is strong enough (as it was in Great Britain after the 1987 Hungerford Massacre) then any Government will ignore the will of the people at their own peril.

Did you look at the rest of my post Hobilar? This is a country who is huge into hunting, conservation and heritage. Firearms are a huge part of that heritage (for the majority of the people, and that actual majority resides in Rural America). In Rural America you will find Democrats and Republicans, most of the time both hunt or own firearms because that is what they grew up around. They are good people, who wouldn't hurt a soul with a firearm because they were TRAINED and MADE AWARE of how dangerous a firearm can become, once put into the hands of a crazy or uneducated person. The people who commit crimes with firearms in this country are gang-members (I hope to God someday the Government finds a way to rid every single one of them), bank robbers, murderers, husbands who come home early from work, etc.

What about the majority of the people who wouldn't dare hurt anyone with a firearm? Hmm?

Hobilar wrote:If public opinion is strong enough (as it was in Great Britain after the 1987 Hungerford Massacre) then any Government will ignore the will of the people at their own peril.

Well, the majority of the people you will find here in America will most definitely not agree with gun control. The polls which are taken on this issue are probably taken within major cities, where most of the people who have never even taken a fresh breath of clean air and spend most of their time shopping and eating at fancy restaurants have stated that "Guns are Evil". Those are where the polls on the issue are taken, because after all, the media is the enemy here in America and they are diehard Liberals. All of their information is biased, because do you really think they would get the information they wanted if they didn't march into the cities to get their data? The Congressman (or women if you are talking about Nancy Pelosi) who support gun-control and even banning them from the hands of Free Americans are fed this information, so they can have a foot to stand on. All of the power in American resides within major cities, as well as the voices. It's ridiculous how the rest of the country never has a word in anything.

I am a proud, firearm owner. It's a hobby, its a fun competitive sport to me to go out on the range with my friends and prove that I can whoop any man who challenges me, and it's also a major heritage to me. There is only one gun I own which was bought in a store within the last 20 years. Every other firearm was handed down to me by my family members. Each one, has history. They are heirlooms. There are many an American who falls into the same category as I do. I also hunt, which is a major part of my life and something I take pride in, because it is a Freedom.

When all of the gun-control supporters come out and say "Guns kill people", I just want to ask them "What about all the murders which took place with knives, baseball bats, golf clubs, 2x4s, cars, computers, chemicals, forks, spoons, dishes, pens, pencils, allergens, animals, shoes, pillows (suffocation), towels, rope, rebar, power-tools, heavy equipment, sabotage, bare hands, feet, pulling the plug, plastics, books, pushing objects onto people, pushing people off of objects, drowning, punching, kicking, smashing their faces in, etc.????" What about all of those? You ban firearms, you might as well ban the use of any object known to man...because it can be used to commit murder just as easy as a firearm. Also, if you would ban those objects...you cause the fail and collapse of thousands of businesses. The key is that any object can be used to commit a crime, and take a life away.

AmericanPride wrote: Also, if you would ban those objects...you cause the fail and collapse of thousands of businesses.

The same argument was used in Great Britain when Fox Hunting was made illegal. They said there would be massive loss of employment in Rural communities. It didn't happen of course. Those who still wanted to 'Ride to Hounds' could still do so-The only difference was that they could no longer go about the gruesome business of tearing wild animals apart with dogs.

Is a Handgun or Assault Rifle really a suitable weapon for Hunting? No, of course not-they are designed for one purpose only-to kill or maim other human beings. So why sell them openly in any sporting Gun shop? This is what needs addressing before more young bodies are brought out from some school or college in blood stained bodybags.

It would be nice now to hear from any Group member who lives within an Urban area (or possibly an Inner-City area of the US). How, if at all, does their perspective on Gun control differ from those who reside in a rural area?

I just want to add one thing in. Handguns are used for hunting, and in some situations they do the better job. A revolver, for instance, is a hunting handgun. It's design today is for that sole purpose. They are normally too big to conceal, slow to reload and are not a weapon of choice for murder or killing human beings...which the whole entire idea of murder is disgusting.

Keep in mind that is mainly my point of view, which is coming from lots of experience with handguns.

Reasons for hunting with revolvers:

1) Often carried in Grizzly country. The main reason because at close distances it has the power to bring the animal down, plus it is easier to operate versus a rifle or shotgun when a bear is coming in on a person. Keep in mind that a Grizzly can easily outrun and overpower the fastest horse in a span of 100 yards. If handguns were banned, the people who live in those areas which are inhabited by Grizzly's, or Kodiak's would automatically be put in danger when they are out recreating. To add onto this, trappers prefer to carry revolvers. Since trapping holds some strong economical ground in the US, I believe it would be really unfair to the ones who do this for a living or do it to help bring in some extra income for their families. It is pointless and useless to carry a rifle or shotgun out to the trap-line to put down an animal which will do severe harm to the individual. That is why a lot of trappers carry .22 revolvers. Small bullet, easy to use and clean and it does the least amount of damage to the hide.

2) The .38, .357 Mag, .44 Mag, .454 and .500 revolvers were designed to hunt animals, not kill humans. If I was a gang member, bank robber, whatever...anyone who would commit a crime with a handgun, they most certainly would not be my weapon of choice. The reasons for this are because revolvers (no matter what caliber compared to the same thing in a semi-auto) have more recoil. Plus, shooting accuracy with revolvers and semi-autos are completely different. You cannot hold revolver the same way as a semi, and get the same accuracy...you will be completely way off target. This includes the grip, trigger pull is heavier, and even the sites are different. One more factor is that revolver are solid metal, and the barrels are designed to keep them generally top heavy and pointing downwards which helps reduce recoil and keep accuracy.

The semi-autos were designed to take out all of these factors which make the revolver an obsolete weapon for killing.

Now I do have to admit, shooting semi-auto handguns is rather fun and good practice. But if they were to be banned, oh well. However there is no reason for revolvers to be included if hunting firearms were to be excluded from national bans.

Assault rifles are another form of guns which I believe civilians have no business owning. I have experience with people owning the semi-auto assault rifles, and they are most of the time absolutely careless with them on the range. I normally do not go onto the range or even go around someone who is out using one of these.

These are my opinions. I am a firm believer that hunting firearms in the US should not even be touched if firearm bans are put in place.

If they really wanted to solve these problems, then they should start making the ownership of firearms down the lines of driver's license or Pass Port applications. I know some people on here may be a little ticked off about my "dissing" of those two types of firearms, but I am merely stating some facts about them and also including that there has to be give and get in situations like these. That is the only way anyone can be happy.

I do want to say, that in the near future I will be the owner of one of these babies


And Hobilar, I am not ganging up on you on this issue. I'm just trying to throw in some meat into the equation and some really good reasons why hunting firearms should never be banned from the US. We are a large country, with a lot of wildlife to manage and a lot of ground for them to live on without human contact. As population grows (which it will), wildlife management will become a much bigger issue for us to deal with here. We cannot do it without the general public hunters, and we cannot do it without firearms. It will be impossible.

Hobilar wrote:Is a Handgun or Assault Rifle really a suitable weapon for Hunting?

That is the same argument that those here in the U.S. use to try to ban firearms, but I'd like to point out the Text of the Second Amendment (I could have sworn it was somewhere in this thread, but I must be overlooking it).

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If you notice, it says absolutely nothing about hunting, what it does mention is the Security of a free state and militias being necessary. I'll pose this question to you, if someone is invading your neighborhood (say the Swiss decided they were sick of being neutral) what would you rather fight them with, a knife, a revolver, a muzzle loader, or an AK-47?

I also find it quite odd that police in a country which strictly outlaws guns still wear ballistic vests and carry the following authorized weapons:
* German Heckler & Koch MP5 (semi-automatic carbine, fitted with Red dot sight)
* Austrian Steyr AUG (Semi-automatic carbine, used by some forces instead of the MP5)
* German Heckler & Koch G36C (semi-automatic carbine)
* Austrian Glock 17 (pistol)
* Swiss/German Sig Sauer P226 (pistol)
* German Heckler & Koch L104A1 "baton gun" (less lethal option, fires rubber bullets)
* American XP26 Taser

The last two I can see, but why would you need those others? There aren't any guns in civilian hands in the UK.

Not to mention that in some circumstances, fully automatic and/or sniping firearms can be authorized for use, including the following:
* German Heckler & Koch PSG1 (sniper rifle)
* German Heckler & Koch G3 (battle rifle, used in sniping roles)
* German Heckler & Koch MSG-90 (sniper rifle)
* American Riflecraft TMR1 (sniper rifle)
* German Heckler & Koch MP5K (semi-automatic PDW)
* German Heckler & Koch 93 (sniper rifle)
* German Heckler & Koch MP5SD2 (semi-automatic carbine, fitted with a integral suppressor)

I'll tell you why (or at least let this article do so.

It is a neighbourhood with a reputation for drugs and violence; a place where gang rivalry has led to shootings. The police officers patrolling these streets have loaded guns in their holsters; armed units are ready to provide back up. Is this a scene from the ghettos of the United States? No, this is Nottingham in the heart of England, a country with a long tradition of unarmed police officers who walk the beat with only a truncheon for protection.

The decision to introduce armed patrols on some inner-city housing estates in Nottingham has raised eyebrows. The days of Dixon of Dock Green may be long gone, but is this a symbolic moment in Britain’s drift towards gun crime?

Senior police officers point to the spread of firearms in cities like Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. And others share a concern that for some young criminals, guns have become part of their image.

It just goes to prove the point that if someone is intent on breaking the law (and those planning murders, robberies, ect seem to fit that category) then why not go just that little step farther and use a gun (it will make it much easier for them since no one who is trying to follow the law will have anything to counter the gun).

The U.S. tried, in a little thing called Prohibition, to ban alcohol. All that did was create NASCAR, the Mafia (Mobsters), and lead to the Repeal of Prohibition. In theory, drugs are illegal. Does that mean there isn't anyone who uses drugs? Nope.

@General Forestry
No offense intended, but please don't interchange the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." The former is a class of infantry weapon the latter is a political term used to stir up fear. It is like calling a Honda Civic hatchback a sports car, which it is not (they can dress it up to look like one, but in the end it is still a civic). An assault rifle can not be semi automatic, if it is not capable of selective fire it is not an assault rifle. TO be an assault rifle it must meet all of the following criteria:
1) be a small arms weapon capable of firing from the shoulder
2) be a selective fire weapon (as in it must be capable of both semi-automatic and 3-round burst/fully automatic without having to reconfigure the weapon)
3) fire an intermediate cartridge (ie, .223, 7.62x39, etc)
4) have a high capacity detachable magazine.
And anything that was not registered originally pre 1986 (therefore transferable with an NFA tax stamp in states that allow it) and is legally owned can not meet provision number 2. I have seen journalists and reporters try to get away with calling the SKS an "assault rifle." Maybe they forget that the original SKS magazine was a non-detachable 10 round magazine, and it was never intended for selective-fire (though china has made one or more variants selective-fire capable, with unsatisfactory results, and aftermarket magazines that detach are widely available, and the chinese have a model of SKS, the "D" model, that has been modified to accept AK-47 magazines).
As for people being careless on the range, then go to one that strictly enforces their rules (the state ones here are serious about "any action deemed unsafe by the rangemaster is grounds for immediate dismissal from the facility").

@ Maximus the Destroyer
Very well said. The original intent of the right to bear arms had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with securing freedom. When a government no longer fears or respects its citizens (that is to say the citizens are no longer considered a factor in how the government decides to rule) always ends up harming its own citizens (which at this point have become like peasants). Case and point, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, North Korea, North Vietnam, Mao's China, to name a few. Some of these actually had their leaders elected (like Nazi Germany), others installed by a peoples lead rebellion and coup.

And there is one concept that is being overlooked, and is more applicable than any of them: If people do not take responsibility and accountability for their own actions, then no law, no matter how explicit, and no state, no matter how oppressive, can prevent one human being from taking the life of another. It is that simple. Some creative ways have been made to come up with excuses for immoral actions (like referring to abortion as the removal of undesirable tissue because the state has deemed a fetus is not a human being, or the genocide of millions of Jews because they were deemed by the state as subhuman and unworthy of life, there are countless more examples). There will always be some excuse for anytime someone does something wrong (temporary insanity, emotional duress, etc), but if it were not for the complete lack of restraint and the unwillingness to take responsibility for their actions it would not be so widespread (journalists and reporters who almost always feature and sensationalize crimes and try to make isolated incidents sound widespread and common do nothing but worsen the matter and cause panic).
Even if you were successful in taking away all the guns, just blotting them out of existence, do you think that would stop crime? Do you think that guns compel people to go and and murder/rape/rob/assault other people? Or do you think they will go back to their earlier methods of using fists, stones, farm instruments, or whatever means that is available? Think very hard about that question. History has shown that as long as there has been man, there has been crime. The only difference in now and then is that now we are bombarded with it all day from the media, instantaneous access to all the information you did or did not want to know. It is not more widespread than it was then, we just (do not have a choice to not) hear about it much more often thanks to globalization and telecommunications.
It is the very (lack of) moral fiber and integrity of humanity that needs to be scrutinized. That is something the government will never do (or never observe, they are prone to hypocrisy), because to do so they would pass judgment on themselves.

Shadow wrote:If people do not take responsibility and accountability for their own actions, then no law, no matter how explicit, and no state, no matter how oppressive, can prevent one human being from taking the life of another.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there. That seems to be the problem these days, no one wants to say anything was their fault.

Shadow wrote:No offense intended, but please don't interchange the terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapon." The former is a class of infantry weapon the latter is a political term used to stir up fear.

The problem is, most of the general public doesn't know there is a difference. The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles for commercial or political reasons.

Shadow wrote:TO be an assault rifle it must meet all of the following criteria:
1) be a small arms weapon capable of firing from the shoulder
2) be a selective fire weapon (as in it must be capable of both semi-automatic and 3-round burst/fully automatic without having to reconfigure the weapon)
3) fire an intermediate cartridge (ie, .223, 7.62x39, etc)
4) have a high capacity detachable magazine.

Let's compare these to the criteria set forth in the US Assault Weapons Ban bill, as well as in other Federal legislation:

(1) A semi-automatic rifle. Wrong. Full-automatic capability is a sine qua non of the true assault rifle. But since full-auto weapons were already illegal or virtually so - allowed only with prohibitively complicated and expensive licensing procedures - under Federal regulations going back to before World War II, an accurate definition would have made the whole business redundant. And we couldn't have that, could we?
(2) Detachable magazine. This is an absolute requirement under the terms of the Assault Weapons Ban: no detachable magazine, then it isn't considered an assault weapon. Correctly so; this is indeed a characteristic of the true assault rifle.
(3) Any two of the following:
Pistol grip type stock. Correct in a sense but irrelevant; the purpose of this type of stock is to make the assault rifle easier to control in full-automatic fire. In a semi-auto it has no effect one way or another; it is purely a matter of appearance and personal taste.
Bayonet mount, Totally irrelevant; most military rifles for centuries have taken bayonets, and at the same time some legitimate assault rifles don't.
Flash hider, grenade launcher, and/or threaded barrel. Equally irrelevant; these are features of military rifles, but not particularly the "assault" type - in fact the original assault rifle, the StG-44, didn't have a grenade launcher in its first versions, or a flash hider either. (It is claimed that a threaded barrel makes it possible to fit a silencer. In fact, for technical reasons, a rifle of this type cannot be effectively silenced.)

It will be seen that the SKS, so frequently referred to by the activists and the media as an "assault rifle," is no such thing, either by the correct military definition or that of the Assault Weapons Ban. It will also be seen that the official definition of "assault rifle" has very little to do with the true meaning of the term - or indeed with anything to do with the effectiveness of a weapon, or its potential use in violent crime (how many drive-by bayonetings have you heard of?) - and is more concerned with cosmetic issues. Basically an "assault rifle," as the term is used by political activists and careless journalists, is any rifle that looks scary. The activists would be far closer to the target if they would speak of "military-style rifles." That is really what they mean; and it would have the advantage, from their viewpoint, of taking in several non-assault-type weapons that they also would like to ban, such as the SKS and the M-1 carbine. But "assault" sounds so much more menacing. So much more powerful and dangerous.

The man who coined the term "assault rifle" also said, "What matters is not what is true, but what is believed."

This is in response to the last 4 posts.

Isn't an assault rifle and an assault weapon one and the same thing basically? Is it not true that weapons are used to defend and offense? Either way they are made for one purpose, to take the life of a human being.

Could be wrong...but I don't think so.

There may be definitions to describe what firearm is what, but they are divided into two categories for me: hunting, and killing people. Recreation, and assault. Tools and weapons. It's in black and white. I think General Forestry was absolutely correct on his statement, if what he said wasn't "legally" correct or what not...oh well, different people say different things which describe the same thing. When I hear assault weapon, many things go through my mind: rifles, handguns, submachine guns, machine guns, etc.

AmericanPride wrote:This is in response to the last 4 posts.

Isn't an assault rifle and an assault weapon one and the same thing basically? Is it not true that weapons are used to defend and offense? Either way they are made for one purpose, to take the life of a human being.

Could be wrong...but I don't think so.

There may be definitions to describe what firearm is what, but they are divided into two categories for me: hunting, and killing people. Recreation, and assault. Tools and weapons. It's in black and white. I think General Forestry was absolutely correct on his statement, if what he said wasn't "legally" correct or what not...oh well, different people say different things which describe the same thing. When I hear assault weapon, many things go through my mind: rifles, handguns, submachine guns, machine guns, etc.

Saying that Assault Rifles and Assault Weapons are the same is like saying that Squares and Rectangles are the same. All squares are rectangles, BUT all rectangles are not squares. By your definition, Brass Knuckles, Ka-bars, ect are all "assault weapons.

I really like your Idea of only having things in 2 categories. I think I'll expand it to more of life. Everything in life is either a Square or Circle. The stop sign is obviously a circle and my couch is a square. Oh this is fun... Let's go with Black and white next....

Oh, by the way, killing people is technically hunting, you are just hunting people. and since we are going by individual definitions, I say an assault weapon is anything that has been used to kill another person, so all guns, all knives, pencils, cars, drugs, rope, grocery bags, pillows, ect. And as for everything being either a tool or a weapon, every thing is in one category, tools. A weapon is just a tool of death.

"A man can be an artist, at anything; food, whatever. It just depends on how good he is at it. Creasy's art is death. He's about to paint his masterpiece."

CrazyCatman wrote:
Oh, by the way, killing people is technically hunting, you are just hunting people.

Unbelievable...I can't imagine any sane person would actually believe that killing a fellow human is the same as going out into the woods with a machine-gun to kill Bugs Bunny or Bambi's mother.

Is clinging to an obsolete piece of eighteenth centrury legislation more important to you than the cost of one child's life?

Hobilar wrote:Unbelievable...I can't imagine any sane person would actually believe that killing a fellow human is the same as going out into the woods with a machine-gun to kill Bugs Bunny or Bambi's mother.

You mean like this???

Guns don't kill people....husbands who come home from work early do