Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
(Post 951801)
I'll note once again that this entire thread was started by a conservative with significant firearms experience who from the get go demonstrated the same ignorance you say invalidates most from a discussion on the topic.
|
That's great, but political affiliation is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I know liberals that are firm 2A defenders and carry a pistol on their hip every day. Regarding Jim's experience with firearms, the Marines train every one of their soldiers to be damn good with their rifles. The Marines
don't train their soldiers on arbitrary political definitions of civilian firearms.
Quote:
The modifications listed in the AWB were primarily targeting concealment and ability to increase rate of fire. I don't know how anyone could argue this doesn't increase the potential lethality of the weapon in the right hands.
|
I'll agree that there was a pathetic attempt to target concealment (which is amusing when you consider a person trying to conceal a 26" rifle with the stock folded) but you're
absolutely incorrect that the AWB had a focus to "primarily target an ability to increase rate of fire" and even if it did, the AWB did nothing to address rate of fire. How do any of the features increase the
rate of fire? This argument would hold a small amount of water if high-capacity magazines were on the list, but they weren't. Folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet lug, grenade launcher - how do any of those things "increase rate of fire"?
There's that whole "Don't you have even a basic understanding of the simple functions of mechanical objects?" again - remember, your words not mine.
Quote:
I believe the intent of the law was to recognize there are valid sporting uses, but the semi-auto is in a grey area between sport and military/police. The law you assert as arbitrary was in fact trying to draw a line with some very basic parameters.
|
I believe the intent of the law was to get rid of those "scary black guns", even though their use in committing a crime is 18 times fewer than handguns (as of 2009). How exactly is semi-auto a "grey area" between sport and military/police? The military utilize weapons with burst/full-auto capability and the police have access to the same weapons systems if they choose. Is my semi-auto shotgun that I use skeet shooting within one of your inconsistent and undefined "grey areas"? For hunting, the ability to quickly get a second round off could mean the difference between being trampled/maimed by a pissed off boar or putting the animal down. For home-defense, how much good would the slow action on a bolt-action weapon do? Keep in mind that home-defense is more than home invasions. It's also a bear going after your horses or some negligent neighbor's pitbull chasing after your kid in the backyard.
Quote:
Hey Jim, in combat how often did you have your rifle on auto vs semi?
-spence
|
You forgot to ask about burst. Either way, the question is completely irrelevant because we aren't talking about combat situations. Just as you previously mentioned that there are many legally available items that become illegal when combined, there are many effective tools and products that civilians utilize that the military has also found to be effective. We are not talking about an exclusive situation here, where if the military can use it, then it must made completely unavailable to civilians.
