Reply With QuoteI have avoided the news cycle since the tragedy. I knew it would be a dog pile of journalists with zero clue chiming in.Originally Posted by BlackFlag
Yes
No
Neutral
An assault rifle is selective fire. Unless you pony up 20k for a pre 1986 gun, and fill own an NFA form, you can't get an M16, or AK47
. An AR15, or AK pattern rifle like a Saiga, or WASR are not assault rifles. They are Semi-Auto.
This is what irks me. Bill O'Reilly last night was saying how it's ridiculous that you can buy a Machine gun without registering it, calling AK-47's "Heavy Weapons". His level of ignorance on the subject is typical of not only most journalists, but most non gun owners.
I have avoided the news cycle since the tragedy. I knew it would be a dog pile of journalists with zero clue chiming in.
See, AK 47 and M16 were built keeping military purpose in mind ie effective killing with no chance of survivability and not for domestic use.The same goes for most rifles.Then again these rifles if used in domestic environment,due to their automatic burst firing capabilities can lead to higher causality rate than pistols and revolvers.
Now do we need such weapons against home intruders and thieves ?
Although i am from an entirely opposite culture,i do recognize the importance of of firearms with respect to american culture and i am not against it.But i am of the view that these weapons should largely be limited to shooting ranges and not for keeping at home.
Quite a lot of people survive being shot with both of those weapons.
That isn't the only reason people own firearms.
So are you going to pay to store all of your rifles at a range? What if you want to go hunting?
You must love our gun laws, where revolvers for home defence are banned, but I can legally have a "sniper rifle"
You are out of your element, Donnie.
Our 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with thieves or hunting (another one that always comes up).
Quit while you're ahead. Keep proving your ignorance on this matter and you just might win that coveted DAOTW Award,
Yes. If I am defending my home, I want to create a beaten zone around my house. I will have to defend it without assistance from other trained personnel, no way to get back-up immediately, etc. So I need more lethal stuff than the cops and military do, because I'm acting alone.
When the zombies come, I want as much firepower as I can store.
You don't know anything about firearms.
I just want to chime in and call you an idiot. I know Hollis has already covered that area, but you obvioulsy didn't get it the first time.
Now that aside, read up on the NFA and what it covers. Then read up on what can be purchased at the gun store with just filling out Form 4473. That should get you ahead somewhat, but I'm guessing that you will ignore what I have written and keep in spewing sh!te!
^Funny way of putting it, but I agree.
Of course a basic level of regulation is necessary for the responsible ownership and purchase of any firearm. Obviously background checks need to be done by any licensed FFL selling firearms to any person. People get the impression that getting a gun in the USA is like the gun market scene of the movie 'Black Hawk Down' or something, it's not rampant dispersion of guns to everyone. Of course checks are made, so as stated millions of times before by people in the know. Do your own research people.
Yes of course there will always be someone with a gun that will commit a crime, even people who have legally obtained their guns have used them in crimes. This is unfortunate, but true. Now even if guns were so scarce and near impossible to get, would this make violent crimes drop off then? That would be of course wrong, and you would be implying that guns create more crime. Again this is false, just look at crimes in the past. Even in China murders are committed, but since guns are harder to obtain there most of these violent acts are carried out with other methods. Just a few years ago there were a string of violent attacks against school children by knife-wielding psychopaths in China. So what's the point I'm making? Should we regulate and/or ban guns, knives, bats, pointed objects in order to prevent crime?
Inanimate objects are mere tools, its the people that commit the crime. Even if a robber breaking into my home in the dead of night was just armed with a baseball bat, I would still grab my AK without second thought. It's the principle of it, I have the right to defend my own life, and the lives of those around me whom I care about. Whats the moral difference if I was fearing for my/others lives and the best I could do was call the police and hope they show up in time with their guns to remedy the situation? When I can already be armed and prepared to at LEAST have a fighting chance, rather than be at the complete mercy of the situation. When seconds count, the police/military/firemen/etc are ALWAYS minutes away...
99/100 YOU are always the first line of defense when it comes to your life being threatened. Very rare will you be mugged in broad daylight and a cop will just happen to be there immediately to save you. Just doesn't happen folks, I've never been mugged, raped, robbed, or had my home broken into. But I still have the foresight and the knowledge to know that bad things can happen to good people, I learn from lessons and misfortune of others to know what I can do to be better prepared myself. I always seem to get people who bring up null arguments: "well I can see you owning a gun if you've been mugged or robbed before..." Really? So I have to experience a life-threatening situation personally before I can take into consideration some self-preservation means? Well I guess I'm a visionary then, trying to be ahead of the curve and not another statistic, I like to learn from others misfortunes, rather than ignore cold truths and pretend everything is fine and the emergency services will always be there to be my hero.
I can really go on and on and on, but sometimes you just can't fix stupid.
Last edited by KillerBD; 07-24-2012 at 02:06 PM.
I´m all for responsible gun ownership.
I´m not against some reasonable controls, as long as they´re few, basic and rational.
People should be as much free as possible to own a gun for, if sadly needed, defend themselves.
You're a city slicker, aren't you?A farmer from Arkansas might disagree and I say rightfully so.
Yes, but reasonably designed gun laws can also reduce illegal possession and - use. As far as I'm concerned that should be their furthermost purpose. What appalls me is that FBI studies - mind you it's neither the NRA nor the Brady Center - show alarming trends with regard to the number of hands a firearm passes until it's "become illegal": it's not many hands. Installing more safety nets could come at the price of harrassment of law-abiding citizens but in return legislators could reduce other restrictions and stumbling blocks; seeing that America is a federal state I've always wondered why there was no push for unified legislation when it comes to firearms. Don't get me wrong, I'm not recommending Californian laws - just the same law for all states, it'd be a start.
Only if the other states adopt laws akin to Georgia, or some state with even less restrictions.
We don't have the 2nd amendment for hunting, sport shooting, or even self defense. We have this right so we can fight against our government.
You foreigners should know this already.
So, I wonder: would you tolerate if all of the US had the weapons laws of such a state if they came at the cost of, let's say, rising prices for firearms and ammunitions?Only if the other states adopt laws akin to Georgia, or some state with even less restrictions.
Posting Permissions
