And if guns are so pointless to you than why post here, you are total intitled to your own opinion, but guns are not pointless to everyone. Im sure that there are 1,000's of people that think something you own or take part in is total pointless, and again so what if you don't like them fine cool do what ever makes you happy but there are a lot of people that feel otherwise.CommieChipmunk wrote:
+1Bubbalo wrote:
For the last FUCKING time:
I do not FUCKING care. I never have FUCKING cared, I never will FUCKING care. It could stand for FUCKING Albino Rhododendrons, I still wouldn't give a damn, FUCKWIT. The terminology is FUCKING accurate, because it is the FUCKING law, and apparently there have been no other FUCKING definitions.
And so far as I am FUCKING concerned, the only FUCKING sensible firearm owners are FUCKING farmers and others who use them as part of their FUCKING job (yes, including soldiers) but would rather guns didn't exist.
I will not FUCKING post again, you dense piece of shit.
guns are pointless, but i guess the human population has to be kept in check somehow right... heh
Well at least your ideas make sense with your nick.CommieChipmunk wrote:
+1
guns are pointless, but i guess the human population has to be kept in check somehow right... heh
And Bubbalo I still disagree that it was the correct terminolgy, Clinton was just wrong, they labeled some rifles and other firearms assault weapons when in reality, they were not, they labeled them such because of the way they looked, NOTHING with how they functioned. The way a firearm functions is how it is classified. Not by how it looks. At least in terms of assault weapons (fully automatic firearms, SBR's, AOW's.)
How can you say it was correct, your only source is Clinton and legislation???
Don't you think DEFINITIONS of certain ITEMS should come from the majority of those that use those items and that work with such items (Clinton not being one of them).
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 00:51:10)
Yes, a definition which you claimed was correct without any proof. Further, you said:
when what you had said before was:AlbertWesker[RE wrote:
]Like I said before, the term "assault weapon" is heavily used by the media to describe any rifle that looks evil like an ar-15....ak47....
And no, my argument wasn't flawed by my source. My argument was that Clinton didn't classify them as Assault Weapons. Where did is say that is incorrect?AlbertWesker[RE wrote:
]the liberal media has labeled such weapons as assault rifles when they are completely inccorrect.
Real definition
Clinton definitionDefinitions
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.
That guy describes an Assault Rifle in exact detail.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Ok I'll rewind it for you this is in reference to your "any firearm that can hold a clip with more than ten rounds is an assault weapon under U.S. law"
The very law you stated, the 94 Ban states this exactly
The very law you stated, the 94 Ban states this exactly
YOUR OWN SOURCE STATES that it only stopped manufacture of new magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It mentions absolutely nothing of labeling firearms as assault weapons do to such magazines being inserted. Other than this article. But it still has nothing to do with the 10+ rounds and labeling.certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.
The first two quotes are the same nothing realy has changed just some of the words, he was trying to make a point that they were classifying the weapons based on looks (quote one) and that this was incorrect (quote two).
Indeed, I misread. The point remains that Clinton never misclassified anything as an Assault Rifle.
Yes he does This:Bubbalo wrote:
That guy describes an Assault Rifle in exact detail.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
Read this part more carefullyA genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
"assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons."
AGREED!!!, he just misclassified certain weapons as ASSAULT WEAPONS.Bubbalo wrote:
Indeed, I misread. The point remains that Clinton never misclassified anything as an Assault Rifle.
So, because that guy claims that an Assault Weapon is exactly the same as an Assault Rifle it is?
I declare that anything the colour black is a Stealth Fighter.
I declare that anything the colour black is a Stealth Fighter.
What, where does he claim that an assault weapon is exactly the same as an assault rifle, please quote.Bubbalo wrote:
So, because that guy claims that an Assault Weapon is exactly the same as an Assault Rifle it is?
I declare that anything the colour black is a Stealth Fighter.
I can only find this
And that is the incorrect assumption made by Clinton, and Feinsteinn, et al.tates a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.
Just because a rifle has a pistol grip, and a bayonet mount does not make it an assault weapon (according to Clinton sure, but that is just not correct to the firearm community at large.)
Like I've said before, the correct definition should be, and is this
A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:01:31)
The desciption is exactly the same.
So you make NO distinction between a weapon that is capable of automatic fire and one that is not???Bubbalo wrote:
The desciption is exactly the same.
Ok look at this definition again
Bolded means it can be switched at any time while holding the weapon.A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
And this definition:
The second one is SEMI-AUTOMATIC ONLYsemi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:
* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:04:05)
The description of an Assault Weapon is exactly the same as your definition of Assault Rifle.
????Bubbalo wrote:
The description of an Assault Weapon is exactly the same as your definition of Assault Rifle.
Heres the problem, I don't like either of those terms the way they are used by the ill-informed, so I don't distinguish that well when writing about them however. To me, An Assault weapon is
And so is an assault rifle. I do not like the Clinton definition because it is based SOLELY on cosmetics and not the function of the firearms. The ban DID NOT stop or limit production of TRUE assault weapons (read: Fully automatic) because they(TRUE assault weapons) have been HEAVILY restricted since 1934.A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:09:49)
Regardless, there is an accepted, legal definition for Assault Rifles. There never was for Assault Weapon, until Clinton, at which point it became legal, even if it wasn't accepted. Therefore, to say that he used improper terminology is not true. And how you feel about those laws is immaterial.
So I and countless others, who work daily with firearms, and study firearms law...our opinions mean nothing. Ok.... alright Question, is your "legal defintion for Assault Rifles" the one I have explained countless times about being fully automatic or selective??Bubbalo wrote:
Regardless, there is an accepted, legal definition for Assault Rifles. There never was for Assault Weapon, until Clinton, at which point it became legal, even if it wasn't accepted. Therefore, to say that he used improper terminology is not true. And how you feel about those laws is immaterial.
Alright your point makes more sense now about using improper terminology at the time. Heres my point, it is NOW improper to use that terminology as it ONLY describes COSMETICS of a firearm and not its function ala fully automatic or selective. What good is a definition that tells me how a gun looks?
Those laws?? How I feel?? Its not How I feel, its the FACT that once a law is in sunset, nothing of it applies to any judicial case EVER again, it does NOT SET PRECEDENT. It does not set definitions. It is NOT a law anymore. That is a FACT, not my feelings. Law class.......Bubbalo wrote:
And how you feel about those laws is immaterial.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:18:39)
None. Even so, if a media outlet choose to use that definition they are using the most recent governmental definition. Further, it isn't just how the gun looks. It includes:
1) Can the gun be made to be less noticable when fired?
2) Can the gun be collapsed to a smaller size (which would make it more compact)
3) Can the gun be used to fire explosives (grenade launcher)
I would argue that whether a gun can blow holes in walls isn't cosmetic (granted, that was redundant). Either way, I'm done with this. You attacked Clinton for saying something he never said, and then when you were shown to be wrong confused the discussion.
1) Can the gun be made to be less noticable when fired?
2) Can the gun be collapsed to a smaller size (which would make it more compact)
3) Can the gun be used to fire explosives (grenade launcher)
I would argue that whether a gun can blow holes in walls isn't cosmetic (granted, that was redundant). Either way, I'm done with this. You attacked Clinton for saying something he never said, and then when you were shown to be wrong confused the discussion.
I have already conceded to being incorrect in stating that Clinton said something...get over that.Bubbalo wrote:
None. Even so, if a media outlet choose to use that definition they are using the most recent governmental definition. Further, it isn't just how the gun looks. It includes:
1) Can the gun be made to be less noticable when fired?
2) Can the gun be collapsed to a smaller size (which would make it more compact)
3) Can the gun be used to fire explosives (grenade launcher)
I would argue that whether a gun can blow holes in walls isn't cosmetic (granted, that was redundant). Either way, I'm done with this. You attacked Clinton for saying something he never said, and then when you were shown to be wrong confused the discussion.
Yes yes, I understand those arguements however, grenade launcher attachments are rarely used, the law did not really accomplish anything in the end other than Democrats losing seats in the house in 96'. I agree those three things are functions but number two is already covered under SBR's, if a rifle is at least 26" overall length and has a 16" barrel, it can have whatever stock the owner wants to put on it.
1)But overall, I think that assault weapon is the incorrect term for a rifle with a muzzle brake, do you even know what a muzzle brake is intended to do, its not to hide the flash, its to reduce felt recoil and reduce muzzle jump.
2)The grenade launcher attachement on some SKS variants are not used for grenades rather other accessories,
3) and the collapsible stocks on most rifles (AR-15's) only collapse 6 inches at most. Thats not enough to make it more concealable.
Like I said, MOSTLY COSMETIC, sorry if i said purely cosmetic (that would be my feelings , as explained above)
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:27:02)
with the grenade launcher thing, the only other weapons that have grenade launchers are already covered under the 1934 GCA (ie M203), the other grenade launchers, the only one that is vastly available is the SKS, but buying grenades for it is illegal, and was illegal before the 94 ban. So the ban accomplished what?Bubbalo wrote:
None. Even so, if a media outlet choose to use that definition they are using the most recent governmental definition. Further, it isn't just how the gun looks. It includes:
1) Can the gun be made to be less noticable when fired?
2) Can the gun be collapsed to a smaller size (which would make it more compact)
3) Can the gun be used to fire explosives (grenade launcher)
Anyways good talking to you, glad you calmed down, I agree with some of the points you made, hopefully you'll see things a bit more clearer from someone who spends most of his life on firearms law, instruction, and safety. Stay safe. Take it easy, hell i'll even karma you up!
Edit: I'm tired, its like 1:38am, time for sleep.
Edit: I'm tired, its like 1:38am, time for sleep.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-07-25 01:38:08)
By the way, I never said any of those things in italics. You quoted the wrong person, my friend. A simple error that easily comes from trying to sift through quote chains during commenting, so forgiven. However, the bow comment was meant as sarcasm, something I'm not sure anyone picked up.Bubbalo wrote:
I would assume not, for two reasons:unnamednewbie13 wrote:
My compound bow has a quiver with 80 arrows. Am I in wrongful possession of an assault weapon?Bubbalo wrote:
According to US law, anything with a clip over ten rounds is an assault weapon. So those would be.
1) I imagine the wording says "firearm"
2) A quiver isn't a clip. Same as a bandolier isn't a clip.I imagine so, yes.bubbalo thought I said wrote:
Good point, so since my hand gun can hold 18 rounds, is it also considered an assault weapon???Possesion yes, as to whether it's wrongful I wouldn't know.bubbalo thought I said wrote:
I also own an AR_15 that has a 14.5" barrel, is this also a wrongful possession of an assault weapon???
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-07-25 01:44:52)
I apologise profusely.