OK LIb s, let's think this "assault weapons" ban through with math and logic...

Out of curiosity, what were the many useless feel-good laws that the sheriff listed?

 

Don't want to insult you here-but Feeble attempt at calling me ignorant!!
What has this got to do with the OP? Please stay on topic!

 

Popular question herein. But I'll answer again, since it's a long thread:

It's where it began, and from which assault rifles evolved. The idea was a gun that downed airmen could carry easily, and stave off potential swarms of enemy combattants. Ergo, "Survival Rifle," which the military quickly saw had offensive uses as well; ergo, Assault Rifles.

 

No that is just incorrect. You are correct about the paratroopers needing a smaller weapon but the "storm rifle" was to address infantry needs. It was adapted to other uses.

 

Honestly-when he mentioned "feel good laws" along with why laws weren't being enforced-there were so many questions about the loopholes,he didn't go into the feel good laws,which really disappointed me (1) because you had mentioned these laws in an earlier post(2) another chance to get educated on the subject,like why are they there? ---I will, however, go do some research on my own to then have a better discussion on this issue-Please,Mr Tom,I am really interested in solving a problem,not arguing,if you want to help educate-I'm all in----

 

Google "Armalite."

 

For one you said: "It's where it began, and from which assault rifles evolved. The idea was a gun that downed airmen could carry easily, and stave off potential swarms of enemy combattants. Ergo, "Survival Rifle," which the military quickly saw had offensive uses as well; ergo, Assault Rifles."

That is incorrect. Perhaps as it pertains to the M16 alone but not as it pertains to selectable fire intermediate cartridge rifles as a class.

 

Dont you love how they try to argue. When you make a point, they don't focus on the context...............because if they did, they would have to admit you are right. Its much easier for them to try to pick apart the words you use instead of the argument you are trying to make.

Its just entertaining to watch it unfold before my eyes! LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Translation: No, no, no you are wrong. Well, it kind of perhaps, maybe, kind of, sort of pertains to the M16, which would make you right..................but I choose to focus on other things that makes you wrong!

 

I read three words and was "nope".

The StG44 was the first assault rifle. Is does not have any "airmen" roots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44

So basically you want to ban something you can't even define or understand.

Can you name any firearms that are designated "survival rifles"?

Omit the .22's and .410'. LOL

 

Those studies were completed 11 years ago. They were conducted on evidence gathered 2-4 years BEFORE the 'assault weapons' ban expired. They DID acknowledge at the time that gun homicides were down but they weren't quite willing to state (or admit) a clear connection to gun regulation without more evidence. Two years after they completed their studies, the 'assault weapons' ban expired. Since then, another four assaults have made the top ten most deadly in US history. Most or all of which were carried out using previously banned specific models and/or previously banned extended capacity magazines.

Sandy Hook was the single most deadly one-man gun attack in US history. The primary weapon was a previously banned version of the AR-15 equipped with previously banned 30 round magazines. #11 was also carried out in part, with a previously banned version of the AR-15 equipped with a previously banned high capacity magazine.

Another factor to consider: We live in an era of profound corruption, greed, and fraud. It's been getting worse for decades. I consider it very possible that the CDC was pressured or influenced by the Bush Administration and/or the NRA to make the statement they did regarding the need for more evidence. That is not an allegation. Just a consideration. After all, they DID admit that gun homicides were down. They just didn't establish a clear connection.

 

I believe we really just need a class of Arms meant specifically for persons unconnected with militia service.

 

Nope.

The M-16 was designed to be an infantry rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle

You need to post your citations instead of expecting people to stroll through the Armalite website for answers.

 

There is no connection between survival rifles and assault rifles. Different types, different purposes, different evolutions.

The real elephant in this thread is psychiatric drugs. All the focus on so-called "assault" rifles (lower-function civilian copies, actually) and how many domestic mass-shooters have used them is just focusing on the tool used to commit the crime instead of the actual motivation to do it in the first place.

Most of the mass shooters (the Colorado and Connecticut shooters included) of the last couple of decades have been under psychiatric care, taking those new-fangled psychiatric drugs that so many people are putting their kids on these days. Given such a large number of people on these drugs, it has been pretty well established that they have some very bad side effects, including amplifying or even causing suicidal and violent thoughts and actions.

So why does banning the tool, used harmlessly by the vast majority of owners, take precedence over banning the cause, a far more dangerous substance with a bad track record?

 

There was no stutter in my post. You just cant understand what you are talking about.

 

Sp... tell me (and be explicit), how would the ban do anything if those firearms were still in circulation, produced, and sold to civilians?

Pre-ban refer to what was sold before the ban and what is available today. Post ban is what was available during the ban.



Again, be explicit. Answer the question.

 

Because mass shooters should kill 32 with handguns but not 25 with a rifle.

 

But the AR-5 was not. (note AR = Armalite)

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armalite_AR-5

 

So you want to ban a .22 bolt action?



What a joke.

The AR-5 has absolutely nothing to do with any assault rifle designs today.

Seriously. Just stop. You are digging a hole.

 

You see first you say Assault rifle, then you say armalite, then you talk about AR-5... Damn have you run out of straws to grasp at yet?

One company that makes products that you say this or that about has nothing to do with the reality of the subject here. Hey what did they have to do with the AK-47?

 

I mean. How many enemy troops, armed with assault rifles, is a bolt action .22 Hornet going to hold off?

This is seriously one of the stupidest arguments I have heard on this board.

 

QFT .....

 

Check again, up-thread. The question was "Survival Rifle," and not what is an Assault Rifle.

Meanwhile, the amount of f*** I give = 0, when discussing origins of whatever weapons. I like my Sig Sauer, and when I pull the trigger a bullet comes out and rips through a paper target, kinda /sorta where I think I'm aiming. It's all good.

If I hunted, maybe a rifle or shot-gun would be handy, but I don't, except when at the meat counter in Whole Foods.

As a citizen, I'm appauled by the massively-lethal, military-style weapons killing so many innocents, even if a very rare occurence. Thus I support efforts to make those events, which will happen again, less lethal, if possible. But doing nothing is unacceptable, IMO.

So when/if a pollster calls, I'm gonna side with banning ARs, high-cap magazines or most anything else folks who understand the issue, which we've elected represent us on these and other issues, can agree on a measure that's reasonable-seeming, to me.

But ya'll need not do the same. We're equal in the voting booth, if nowhere else.

 

What relation is there between bolt action designs and automatic designs?

If survival rifle were "offensive weapons"... why not just issue... a.... oh I don't know, a sub machine gun of sorts?

They did it in WWII. What offensive advantage does a bolt action .22 have over a sub machine gun?

If case you hadn't noticed, these are all questions you cannot answer honestly and still defend your position.

 

It is not! You are incorrect. Wrong! No clue. Nada, nothing, zilch. Now take your shrinking manhood back into the hole you crawled out of.

 

You don't care about discussing the origins of weapons?

Is it because you were called on your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and left looking like a fool?

If you do not care, do not discuss the issue.

If you do not know, do not act like an authority.