Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
And with your vast knowledge you know that the AR15, with 223 5.56 is considered a sub capable hunting rifle, and is outlawed for hunting most but small game. From the military perspective 5.56 is not as dangerous as the 7.62 NATO. They expected if you injure one enemy with the 5.56 you take two of his buds to carry the wounded off, netting three less soldiers to fight. Except this didn't work because it was not wounding / killing enough of the enemy, with the result being that the M-16/M4 (and derivatives) is considered a sub optimal rifle for infantry.
Keep in mind that the military versions of the M4 have higher reliability parts, and have the ability to actually go full automatic - plus grenade launchers and such, like Short Barrelled Rifles (illegal in many states including New England). But you already know this.
So the Army is now looking at a 6.5/6.8 caliber in order to reach out a little further and actually hurt the enemy more.
You also surely know that of the tens of thousands of deaths per year are 99% crime / gang violence and suicide - both things that really need to be worked on, and not the 0.5% of deaths caused by "Weapons of War Assault Weapons" (your words). And that 0.5% of the problem, gun violence, is not what is focused on and properly addressed.
So when those that want to work on the gun issue are told by the other side "no, we're gonna mandatory buyback of legally owned rifles, cough, weapons of war, cough" from the millions of responsible, law abiding citizens of this country, we're lockstep in NRA talking points? GMAFB. Your argument is weak and does little to none to address actual Gun Violence and death. Your argument is a simple grab that penalizes lawful citizens and will do but a tiny bit to help anything but suppress the rights of those that responsibly own and possess firearms.
Again, keep ALL firearms out of the hands of people that should not have access to them, enforce the EXISTING laws that are on the books, get the guns doing the actual killing off the streets, and leave the legal people the fvck alone.
See my comments above - your argument is crap and you know it.
|
The only crap arugment I see is the word No. When it comes to gun any regulation ..
It takes 1 second to look at gun ads there not selling 5.56 weapons for varmint guns . There selling them so people can think their operators . With all the rail stuff associated .. I know plenty ..practicality is not the reason they own one nor is self defense..thats just the 1st reason when you say that looks like what we had in Iraq
No one says Legal gun owner cant possesse guns no matter how hard you insist thats the plan. There are just some weapons and we all know the types were talking about should not be in circulation .. whats out is out and i have zero illusions were going door to door to get them . But stopping the flow sounds good to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device