What's the best legally available assault weapon if you're thinking of going up in a bell tower for a little Texas-style target practice?

I want something accurate with knock-down power. It has to be automatic with a large capacity clip because I've noticed the filth tend to run like the #^&#^&#^&#^&ens once you open up on them.

Might want to add a little :jester: when making statements like that!

:eek5: Barrett .50 cal. sniper rifle...US military approved..they can run but they can't hide! :hihi:
I now resume my usual "liberal" programming.

:cool:

That .50 cal could probably cut someone in half at 1000 meters. Quite a sexy piece of machinery.

Actually, it was my first attempt to answer your question. And I was quoting the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution. I apologize if my answer was not valid nor good. So I will try again. I, personally, do not like guns. I am very uncomfortable in the presence of someone holding a gun. So my answer will be as a devil's advocate, not with great conviction.

A few words later in the same long sentence wherein Jefferson states the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" he says "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it . . ." To those average citizens who truly believe they have that right, it would seem to be a very valid need to own the types of weapons that, banded with their fellow average citizens, would enable them to alter, etc., that government that threatened to destroy their unalienable rights.

Timmothy McVeigh was executed for letting his interpretation of these same words influence his actions to the point where he was killing Americans to defend their freedom from Government.

It's a slipperly slope you're on.

-spence

I am, by no means, a gun advocate. I don't own, don't like guns. But I wouldn't mind if some bolder, righteous, gun owner saved my timid ass if I were mortally threatened by a bad guy. And the saver wouldn't have to be a cop since police usually aren't around at the critical time. And that one time in my life that such may happen would be far more important to my selfish soul than reducing suicides.

I absolutely agree with you that we should keep guns out of the hands of children.

Wasn't comparing Japan to the U.S. Just demonstrating that high suicide rates don't need guns. Most aren't ritual. Just movin on out.

English serfs who were the victims of homicide were probably killed by someone stronger or better armed. Guns tend to equalize that strength thing. If all the serfs had glocks, the homicide rates might not, as you are sure of, gone up, but down. The "Wild West" was not as wild as we are told--mostly dime novel myth. Everyone was armed and it was actually more civil than some of the many mean streets of today. Probably why Plaxico was packing, in spite of NY laws.

What 20/20 demonstrated is that violent crime and homicide rates, OVERALL, were about the same between states with or without strict gun control. That makes it even MORE INTERESTING that some smaller lax gun control cities have a higher homicide rate than NY. It must mean there are a whole bunch of smaller cities with laxer gun control that have a LOWER HOMICIDE RATE THAN NY, thereby helping to equalize the homicide rates between strict and lax gun control states.

I'm not on that slope. I don't own a gun. I'm just, as I say, playing devil's advocate to give a point of view, frightening as that view may be to you, and to me as well. I am sure that the vast majority of those who hold that point of view, despise Timmothy McVeigh. He did not start a revolution, he just killed a lot of innocent people.

If it sounds familiar because it is my twist on an old cliche, well, cliches are intended to be so.

If you mean that you heard it before, not as a cliche, but as a response to being call a name (i.e.--pimp), then, no, I am not that person. I don't have an ALTERNATE user name (don't know what that is--am new to this computer chat stuff).

I completely understand your position. However, to be completely blunt, the Constitution is law - the Declaration of Independence is not.

http://geekpolitics.com/assault_weapons_ban_is_baloney/
These Rules Don’t MEAN Anything.

During the period the AWB was active no one stopped selling ‘Assault Weapons’ instead these guns were altered slightly so that they no longer offended legislators delicate sensibilities and life went on without a hitch. Firearm manufacturers stopped putting threaded barrels on their guns and stopped selling magazines that held more than the requisite 10 rounds. They renamed these new versions of their firearms and kept selling them; The AR15 became the XR15 and the firearm industry didn’t even notice this bill.
In fact the legislative director of the “Violence Policy Center” even pointed out the legislation did nothing saying,

“The 1994 law in theory banned AK-47s, MAC-10s, UZIs, AR-15s and other assault weapons. Yet the gun industry easily found ways around the law and most of these weapons are now sold in post-ban models virtually identical to the guns Congress sought to ban in 1994.”

The most laughable thing, however, is that it is specifically SEMI-automatic firearms. The Assault Weapons Ban had no bearing on fully automatic weapons. These weapons remain under the purview of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Not to mention the belief that these ‘Assault Weapons’ are somehow more dangerous than any number of other semi automatic weapons that existed at the same time and fired the same ammunition simply because they had a pistol grip or a flash suppressor.

All gun control does is weaken the people. Take a look at some of our history.

Its the current administrations agenda to appear tough on guns. government says assault rifles=evil, assault rifles have been portrayed by the gun grabbers as this evil unnecessary item in our so called free society...

what bothers me is this gives non gun loving people the wrong idea... it sets up a malicious trend....1st my AK is evil next on the list... .50 caliber "sniper" rifles, assault style shotguns, handguns ect.......eventually what can we have...a muzzleloader? how bout a plastic spork??

same with lautenberg law... for example (people i know have lost rights) one for spanking his child, the other called his significant other (gf) a "C" word infront of the wrong person, or the girl who fought back in a fight with her abusive boyfriend..she was charged and convicted too. These people all lost their rights....now because of these minor infractions/past issues these can never defend their home/family with a firearm. is this serious?? this is out of control......and im not trying to give a unbalanced message, i do believe woman bashers should not have guns...But the way this law is working it seems to have been just set up to slowly strip the masses..... there should be rules incorporated into this law that restricts the repeat offender, or one who does serious bodily harm to someone (these people shouldn't have guns, they are out of control)....but for someone to lose their firearm right because they threw a lamp across the room or broke a piece of glass or something during a domestic dispute is just wrong. this law is a good example of how gun control is out of control...oh yeah an in the meantime, while felons can get expungements in some states, some states like Illinios will not allow expungements of these misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. So a felon in RI can technically own a firearm in 10yrs, while some unfortunate guy who gave his ex-wife a bear hug in Chicago is condemned by the feds to no longer posses a firearm for the rest of his life...how is this a fair law?

whats even scarier about this law is a stepping stone, almost like a gateway drug (gun grabber momentum) the next step will be removing firearms from those who have minor convictions of simple assault, or disorderly conduct..ect..... how many of us have gotten into a fight or two in their life?

So you ask....

Why the need for assualt rifle? The AK-47 is the most common and widely used firearm in all of the world... I think the 2nd amendment should at least give us the semi-auto version....

If our enemies have them so should we....Do you know how easy it is to build an AK-47???? Criminals will just make them, or continue to import them.

I was in the military and I was an expert marksman, I learned how to shoot and trust my life with my weapon. Like someone said previously you may just thank me someday for saving your ass!

do you know how many thousands of large magazines and millions of 762 ammo in circulation alone?

how many of AKs are in circulation in the world milions(our enemies? foreign & domestic will always have them) Making pot illegal never stopped people from smoking it and certainly didnt hurt drug trade or did it?

put it this way...if 5or6 armed thugs are preparing to invade your home, take your stuff, threaten your liberty? Are you gonna lock the doors and call 911? Yes, Are they going to wait for the police to show up....Hell no...now, the bad guys are on a mission.....and my thoughts are this... I could possibly fight/scare them off with my mossberg590 (thats a shotgun, liberals), The problem is if they are well armed (with say... evil "illegal"assualt rifles) The weapon I'm gonna need is my AK.

so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R :happy:

and really how many of you out there think people go out to legally buy an assault rifle to commit mass murder? If this were the case there would be alot more homicides because there are a sh*$L$&% of assault weapons out there..

the fact is the majority of these haneous crimes are committed with illegal firearms in the first place....those people who have lost their rights to posess/carry have become victims to the criminals with nothing to lose and all to gain by committing a crime using a illegal firearm.

How many criminals do you think hold up banks/commit crimes with the gun they purchased legally?

On top of that....How many of those same criminals would hold up a bank if they thought 1/2 or 1/3 of the people there were carrying? or how many Rednecks would stop beating their woman if she had a gun and knew how to use it.

Todays society is to dependent of their own government. Cops do a good job for the most part but they cant be everywhere all the time. Why cant people take care of themselves anymore?

Sheez, Chicago thugland has some pretty tough "gun laws"yet still has over 400 murders per year. Gee I hope PBO & Crew brings this to America where it seems most likely the murder rate would go up. Sarc Off.

Also Why do we need trucks/autos, motorcylces that go over 55-65Mph?

Why own a gun/assualt weapon? Because I do not want to be a victim, a slave of the state or depend on LE to be there.

:smash: I was going to reply to your post. Until you displayed you're an ignorant a*s, completely incapable of grownup discussions. You're an idiot.

"Why cant people take care of themselves anymore?"

That is a great question.

Which militia? The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.

You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?

Nice attitude.
:hs::hs:

Because you are the worst shot on earth? I guess so!

Do you need a hanky?
A Tissue?
We have them.
We can help you.

Even I don't want them dead:hihi:

youd have no one to listen to but the voices in your head...Rush and ann caulter.

point well made except .....I don't listen to Rush and the bitch

:claps:

Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...s/viewpost.gif
The American Militia knows this. Defense of liberty is not a radical idea.
Which militia?
You're right the majority of the people don't even realize they are the militia.

The kooks in Michigan?
Move there.

not every kook is from Michigan...
for example, google ARWM

perhaps i should move there though, and prepare for the kooks to fight the government back, or the next terrorist attack. something tells me one day these gun nuts might actually attempt to overthrow the government...what do i know...all i know is if there was a major uprising all s%@* will hit the fan as we know it and people will need guns to protect their liberty....

President Obama takes office, and gun sales are off the charts....why?....
I havent seen a buying frenzy like this in a while

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoXcowboy http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...s/viewpost.gif
so....WHY THE NEED FOR AN ASSUALT RIFLE???

its simple, stupid....F I R E P O W E R :happy:

You pretty much proved that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Have you even held a gun?\\

if you say so buddy,

1st Bn 6th Marines :eek:

expert rifleman and pistol sharpshooter :devil2:

What facts do you have that prove me wrong?

:yawn:

Expert in both eh?

Rock and roll don't get you the 10 ring.

wtf are you talking about...

apparently all you want to do is insult me. we're way off topic here.
I dont have time for this $%*^

hes just mad that you bought the slam pig. ;)

This has already been addressed. I'd repeat it, but I'm tired of the "Pro" crowd refusing to actually read responses, repeating questions and still refusing to *logically* answer any questions in return.

I'm also tired of people talking without any facts to back their comments.

just as a side note. I purchased a 580 seires Mini-14 last year. I was impressed. Much more accurate than my pop's older version.

sean

I'd be curious to know if you really even know how to ride a motor bike.

Certianly you're not a cowboy. I'm a cowboy and it takes one to know on.

-spence

I just spit my coffee out. too funny!
:cheers:

Ok...just to get things back to a "civil discussion" around here...as someone who still has a KTM 495 and CR 250 sitting in the cellar.. a pair of Tony Lama's in the closet... and my "liberal gun owner" credentials in my wallet... I'm gonna personally vouch for MXcowboy. And even if that's not you crossed up 20 feet in the air....maybe you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. ;-) And Spence...MOTOR BIKE!!...you been listening to old beach boys records?

Come on, They have been answered over and over. You just aren't hearing it. Let's just say the Pro Choice of weapon people use the same thinking that the Pro Choice of abortion people use.

Geez...this could be bad...I find myself agreeing with you on this one Buck! :-0 Of course I think BOTH arguements are valid...did you just talk yourself into a corner!! ;-)

The reason people should be allowed to own them is because it's their body so it should be their choice?:hihi:

Seriously though, the consistent answer has basically been "because we should be allowed to" or "it's an infringement of my constitutional rights" which is false, or "why not?"

None of those are "These are the benefits of me being allowed to own an assault weapon." This isn't some 3rd world country where a government uprising could occur at any moment - even though the South would like you to think otherwise.

Why yes, I believe I have :uhoh:

i ll ride circles around u :musc:, bring it on b%^&@ :lama:

"cowboy" was my old dog's name, he loved I/Gs horses..

Heres a photo of him guarding my bike, oh look its the same bike in the avatar..

Ernie was a cool horse, I/G taught me how to jump with him.

:bshake:

Ernie looks like he's having fun in that picture. You look scared %$%$%$%$less.

No real cowboy would ever name their dog cowboy. It would create a rip in space time and both you and the dog would go poooof...

-spence

From the mouth of a gunban proponent:


http://therealgunguys.blogspot.com/2...admits-he.html


THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2007
England's Gun Ban Proponent Admits He Was Wrong

From Scotland's Sunday Herald. Be sure and read the comments below the article. I'm copying it here verbatim in case it disappears from the web:

Dunblane made us all think about gun control … so what went wrong?
By Ian Bell

ALMOST 11 years now. Kids grow up, life changes, leaves rot on the branch, and all memories decay. Stuff happens. Almost 11 years ago, on the morning after, I told myself that I had sworn off the vampire habit. You know the sort of thing. Something vast and terrible and inexplicable happens. The journalist dusts down his purple prose and sets out, consciously and deliberately, to feel everyone's pain. Inexcusable, really.

For example: they gave me a prize for Dunblane. To this day, I have never understood why I am the only person I know who finds the fact unsettling. WH Auden, born a century ago last week, said famously that poetry makes nothing happen. He should have tried journalism.

Facts: In mid-March of 1996 Thomas Hamilton, 43, warped, morally crippled, dead in his soul, certainly disgusting, the suicide-in-waiting who should have done us all a favour in the privacy of his own nightmare, went into the precincts of Dunblane primary, and into the gym class, with all his precious sex-toy handguns.

He killed 16 infants, then their teacher, then himself. He accomplished all this with four weapons, in three short minutes. Lots of official things - never adequately explained, for my money - had gone wrong before the event. Somehow that ceased to be the point. Half the world was staggered, but Scotland went into a state of near-clinical shock. The human ability even to begin to pretend to comprehend was defeated.

All over the country, people did irrational things, knowing them to be irrational. They turned up at schools, 100 miles from the scene, just to convince themselves that their own infants were safe. They called home from work, or called people at work, simply to prove that sanity still prevailed. Many could not face the idea of the working day. Strangers in the street, caught unawares by the news, were in tears. If you happen to be too young to remember, trust this: I'm not making it up.

Explanation and analysis, journalism's default responses, were worse than pointless. Those rituals, too, seemed insulting. Joining the world's media on the streets of Dunblane to ask people "how they felt" was worse than ghoulish: I refused that request. To their credit, nobody pressed the point. There was still the usual column to be written, however.

In fact, over the days and weeks that followed, there was more than one. I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to "explain" Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. "Guns don't kill people," they wrote. "People kill people." So why - this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident - did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn't oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn't that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don't take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

I'm still not convinced, or not entirely. A rueful young man in Los Angeles told me once that his city boasted more cars than people, and more guns than cars. "Current population?" he added. "Eleven million, give or take." To him, the notion of a country patrolled by unarmed police officers was a kind of fantastic dream. To him, equally, the fact that nice kids could lay hands on the family pistol - bought for "self-defence" - and die while simply messing around in the back yard was not an example to be envied, or copied.

"You know what guns do?" he asked. "They go off. You know what guns are for? To kill. That's their purpose. Only the rhetoric is harmless."

Back then, I believed every word. America had, and has, too many of the instruments that Thomas Hamilton found so alluring. Yet almost 11 years on, what do I read, and what do I say?

I read of three London teenagers murdered in the space of 11 days. I read of firearms "incidents" spreading like an epidemic across our cities. I read of Tony Blair holding a Downing Street summit on a crisis that seems - call me naive - a greater threat to many communities than any terrorism.

What I say then becomes obvious: my idea didn't work. In fact, I begin to thread certain fears together, like links in a chain. Here's one: if even London teenagers can provide themselves with the means to kill 15-year-old Billy Cox in his bedroom, guns have become commonplace, so commonplace that every would-be terrorist worth his salt must be armed to the teeth. Bans have failed utterly.

That's a nightmare for another day, however. We can worry about what might happen after we think of what is actually happening.

David Cameron's Tories argue the issue is societal, a problem of parenting and family breakdown. John Reid, home secretary, speaks of people "working together" for a gun-free world while he hints at new laws. Menzies Campbell, of the Liberals, says we need more and more effective policing.

Each of these opinions may have some value. I'd like to think so. Yet why do they sound like the words of men who have only the faintest idea of what life might be like in Harlesden or Moss Side? It is entirely proper to talk of youths who have become detached from society. You may, however, need to qualify the statement with a question: who is detached from whom?

A weapons fetish escalates for a fairly obvious reason. Many things may have changed since my working-class youth, but I am certain that one piece of logic persists. If he is armed, you had better be armed too. Knives become swords, swords become pistols. Status, respect and "security" follow. If you live. Having a father in the household, or access to a youth club, or hopes of a decent education can seem minor, by comparison, on a dark Saturday night.

Saying so solves nothing, obviously. Perhaps journalists, far less politicians, should make that confession now and then. We could all demand a better world - preferably by tomorrow lunchtime - but always bear our fallibility in mind. It goes back to the question I refused to attempt almost 11 years ago. If I could not explain Thomas Hamilton any more than I can explain the killers of Billy Cox, perhaps I have nothing useful to say about anyone's desire to kill.

I can guess, for all that, that there is something unreasonable, even bizarre, about declaring a youth crisis if teenagers are simply as we have made them. It's Tony Blair's fault, if you like. It's my doing, if you prefer. It's schools, or a lack of discipline, or insufficient policing, or new sets of laws, or just society.

If that last word still means anything, however, then we are all, in fact, culpable. Who turned Thomas Hamilton into a beast? God isn't talking. That leaves the rest of us. I cling, nevertheless, to one near-instinctive conclusion from 11 years ago. Guns breed guns. When they enter a society they multiply like a pestilence.

Let's concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn't mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

and drugs and minorities....