gage092879 said:
RBBailey said:
kennith said:Don't forget the assault sling.
Geez.
When those things were first passed out, they were a barrel of laughs.:rofl: All the untangling, breaking formation to help people out, re-tangling, cursing, and general frustration and confusion were too funny.
Chevy Chase could do no better.
Here you are, ready to go do your job, and you are already more tied up than a kitten with a ball of yarn. The image I got every single time was that of some poor office worker hopelessly tangled in his mouse cable before he even made it into the cubicle.
To be fair, they do work very well once you manage to wear them.
Cheers,
Kennith
Drillbit said:
Corprin said:
SGaynor said:
]
RBBailey said:
Corprin said:"Military style", or "assault weapons" is used in the same connotation that our politicians, and the greater society as a whole, have come to define these arms. You can argue till you are blue in the face about how they are not assault rifles. You are not going to change the simple fact that despite how correct you may be, you are not going to change the truths seen by the majority of said population. Thus my use of the terminology.
I did not mean semi-auto, if I would have meant semi-auto firearms, I would have said "semi-auto firearms." Revolvers are not semi-auto, they are revolvers hence the name. The shooter MUST physically cycle the action after each shot before a subsequent shot can be fired. I suggest you review what defines a semi-auto before you speak as though you are knowledgeable on the subject.
As for the shotguns you mentioned, they are semi-auto, but also have a tube-fed magazine of limited capacity that is not quickly reloaded in terms of an external detachable mag; ala AK based Saiga shotguns. Again, I am basing this argument on the commonly accepted, by much of the population, definition of "military style" or "assault" firearms.
I agree, a ban will not happen, but tighter regulation is not that hard to imagine.
It is ironic that you use "clip" colloquially, yet question my use of another colloquialism. That slippery slope is far to scary for us to discuss things in an objective way.
Again, you are jumping to conclusions without reading what I actually said. Most states in this nation REQUIRE some form of waiting period and background check beyond the standard NICS check to purchase some arms, often hand guns. This is true in many "gun friendly" states including yours. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-402.html
I do believe that the gun-show loop hole should be slammed shut, and ALL purchases should require a background check, OR other means to ensure ALL arms are legally transfered; Permit to Purchase, Permit to Carry, FFL licenses, or the absurd notion of membership in a well regulated Militia.
Yes, I wouldn't be shocked to see a push for a waiting period to exercise our right. You have a form of waiting period in the state of NC, as short as it may be, you must first acquire a permit to purchase a hand gun. Presumably that is so you can "cool off" IF you are planning to use said arm for some anger/fear invoked crime. I have no issue waiting for an additional, localized, background check by my local LEO to ensure I am not a known nut-job in the county who has convictions that precludes me from owning arms, yet has not been uploaded to NCIC. By creating a tighter and more complete background check system, we can ensure that a NICS check WILL cover the local/slow aspects of the current system to prevent arms from being acquired by the "wrong sort", thus not requiring the aforementioned need for special, locally approved, permits and licenses.
I also find it interesting that you compare a waiting period for a firearm and its connotations under the 2nd Amendment, to what I assume you suggest as a waiting period to type on this forum and its connotations under the 1st. Maybe you should review the definitions of "right" and "privilege" before making such comments.
Yes, as I said before, this is what I see happening, and there may be more or less, I don't know. When it comes down to it, it is OUR democratically elected officials that ultimately decide what happens... we are just along for the ride.
[edited to remove trolling
Why is it that you believe I am attempting to attack our rights to own firearms? Take off your angry man tinfoil hat and actually read what I said before running your mouth.
Jake said:
Corprin said:"Military style", or "assault weapons" is used in the same connotation that our politicians, and the greater society as a whole, have come to define these arms. You can argue till you are blue in the face about how they are not assault rifles. You are not going to change the simple fact that despite how correct you may be, you are not going to change the truths seen by the majority of said population. Thus my use of the terminology.
I did not mean semi-auto, if I would have meant semi-auto firearms, I would have said "semi-auto firearms." Revolvers are not semi-auto, they are revolvers hence the name. The shooter MUST physically cycle the action after each shot before a subsequent shot can be fired. I suggest you review what defines a semi-auto before you speak as though you are knowledgeable on the subject.
As for the shotguns you mentioned, they are semi-auto, but also have a tube-fed magazine of limited capacity that is not quickly reloaded in terms of an external detachable mag; ala AK based Saiga shotguns. Again, I am basing this argument on the commonly accepted, by much of the population, definition of "military style" or "assault" firearms.
I agree, a ban will not happen, but tighter regulation is not that hard to imagine.
It is ironic that you use "clip" colloquially, yet question my use of another colloquialism. That slippery slope is far to scary for us to discuss things in an objective way.
Again, you are jumping to conclusions without reading what I actually said. Most states in this nation REQUIRE some form of waiting period and background check beyond the standard NICS check to purchase some arms, often hand guns. This is true in many "gun friendly" states including yours. http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-402.html
I do believe that the gun-show loop hole should be slammed shut, and ALL purchases should require a background check, OR other means to ensure ALL arms are legally transfered; Permit to Purchase, Permit to Carry, FFL licenses, or the absurd notion of membership in a well regulated Militia.
Yes, I wouldn't be shocked to see a push for a waiting period to exercise our right. You have a form of waiting period in the state of NC, as short as it may be, you must first acquire a permit to purchase a hand gun. Presumably that is so you can "cool off" IF you are planning to use said arm for some anger/fear invoked crime. I have no issue waiting for an additional, localized, background check by my local LEO to ensure I am not a known nut-job in the county who has convictions that precludes me from owning arms, yet has not been uploaded to NCIC. By creating a tighter and more complete background check system, we can ensure that a NICS check WILL cover the local/slow aspects of the current system to prevent arms from being acquired by the "wrong sort", thus not requiring the aforementioned need for special, locally approved, permits and licenses.
I also find it interesting that you compare a waiting period for a firearm and its connotations under the 2nd Amendment, to what I assume you suggest as a waiting period to type on this forum and its connotations under the 1st. Maybe you should review the definitions of "right" and "privilege" before making such comments.
Yes, as I said before, this is what I see happening, and there may be more or less, I don't know. When it comes down to it, it is OUR democratically elected officials that ultimately decide what happens... we are just along for the ride.
[edited to remove trolling
What if the US military started using sling shots? Is that a Military weapon? Or a potato gun? Make up your mind with these stupid posts!
az_max said:
ChrismonDA said:
Corprin said:
If one can not define what "military style" or "assault weapons" are, one can not regulate them. The US military uses the Remington 700 as a sniper rifle. Does that make it "military style" and subject to ban?Corprin said:
Here you are starting to define them: detachable magazine. Again, please define what "military style" or "assault" firearms." are. [NB: The Rem 700 comes in a version with a detachable magazine. Is that an assault rifle?]Corprin said:
I used it in a quote of what one would (does) hear from the uninformed liberals who want to ban "high capacity" magazines. Why are ten rounds "safer" than 30? It's like banning kegs but allowing unlimited sales of case beer. Doesn't really alter the outcome, just makes it more inconvenient.Corprin said:
No, most states don't require a waiting period. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/gunlaws/Corprin said:
Corprin said:
Corprin said:
Self protection is not a privlidge, it is a Natural Right. Maybe you should review.Corprin said:
You say that this is what you see happening, as if you have no opinion, yet you vehemently defend those positions of banning/restricting gun ownership. You can't have it both ways. You are obviously anti-gun (at least as far as others owning guns are concerned).Corprin said:
Corprin said:
SGaynor said:
Of course it is.pinkytoe69 said:Regulating guns is not regulating protection. There are still plenty of perfectly fine choices available. I was told in the other thread that a gun is no better a weapon than a knife, a ball and chain, or a pair of nunchucks.
SGaynor said:
