Question on mentally challenged thieves - Page 3
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > Survival & Sustenance Living Forum >

Question on mentally challenged thieves


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-01-2009, 08:17 PM   #21
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5738 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaianhamster View Post
Assault as in M-16s, etc.
What about the very similar AR-15? or the AR-10 that i personally lust after? What about a lever action 30-30 rifle by Winchester? What about a semi-automatic version of an AK-47? What about a Remington model 742? REMINGTON 742 3006 150TH ANNIVERSARY 1866-1966 : Semi-auto at GunBroker.com What about a Winchester model 100? Winchester Model 100 .308 Win Strange Carbine 308 : Semi-auto at GunBroker.com

You gave an example, not a definition. It seems to me that this is a common misconception; when i picked up a pistol earlier this year, they didn't have a section for "people-killing guns" and "people-safe guns". Guns can be used as "assault weapons", but so can bricks. Personally, i'd prefer to be shot than beaten to death with a brick, just my opinion.
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 08:21 PM   #22
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3486 Times on 1612 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaianhamster View Post

I also forgot to add that it would be very great to have statistics that prove people do get wounded and/or killed without firearms at their houses.
That's easy, take the national crime figures from someplace like England where no one has a gun and then compare them, per capita, to the crime rates of say Switzerland where every house has a weapon in it....
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 09:08 PM   #23
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 18 Times on 12 Posts

Default

The main problem with the term 'assault rifle' is that 'assault' is an action, not an adjective. The labeling of certain platforms of rifles to be 'assault' is for nothing but to place an ominous name to a firearm for dubious reasons. I contend that an AR-15 is a hunting rifle. If it does not have a barrel shroud, it will have a forearm stock. There is no difference.

I hope that you place in your speech the fact that the Second Amendment was written because the Founders of the US were afraid of government both foregn and domestic.

Search well documented genocides that have been carried out by governments that had total gun bans in place. Any citizen that does not have the ability to defend him/herself against intruders or an oppressive government is a dead citizen.
__________________
From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!

Last edited by skullcrusher; 07-01-2009 at 09:10 PM.
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 09:47 PM   #24
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,849
Liked 3462 Times on 1786 Posts
Likes Given: 375

Default

There are far different definitions of "assault rifles". The military defines an assault rifle as a man portable, shoulder fired, magazine fed, selective fire (selectable between semi and full auto), rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge.

An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not full auto
An M-16 is an assault rifle.
An M-1 Garand is not an assault rifle. It is not magazine fed and shoots a full power cartridge (.30-06)
An AK-47 (the real deal not the civilian version) is an assault rifle.

The first assault rifle was the German StG-44 (AKA MP-43) StG stands for Sturm Gewer. German for Assault Rifle. Allegedly Hitler coined the name. StG-44's are very scarce collectable war relics.

True assault rifles are regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) that requires a purchaser undergo a stringent background check including the submission of fingerprints and photograph and pay a $200 transfer tax before taking possession of such a weapon. As of 1986 no additional NFA regulated "machine guns" can be made or imported for civilian ownership.
__________________
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2009, 10:31 PM   #25
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
skullcrusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio,Ohio
Posts: 10,949
Liked 18 Times on 12 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop10mm View Post
There are far different definitions of "assault rifles". The military defines an assault rifle as a man portable, shoulder fired, magazine fed, selective fire (selectable between semi and full auto), rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge.

An AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is not full auto
An M-16 is an assault rifle.
An M-1 Garand is not an assault rifle. It is not magazine fed and shoots a full power cartridge (.30-06)
An AK-47 (the real deal not the civilian version) is an assault rifle.

The first assault rifle was the German StG-44 (AKA MP-43) StG stands for Sturm Gewer. German for Assault Rifle. Allegedly Hitler coined the name. StG-44's are very scarce collectable war relics.

True assault rifles are regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) that requires a purchaser undergo a stringent background check including the submission of fingerprints and photograph and pay a $200 transfer tax before taking possession of such a weapon. As of 1986 no additional NFA regulated "machine guns" can be made or imported for civilian ownership.
Very well put, robo. Unfortunately the Brady's definition and the US military's definition of 'assault rifle' differ, as you have stated in regards to the true definition. If you show Joe/Jane Commonperson on the street a pic of an AR-15 and a close up of the selector switch and there is no 'burst' or 'auto', they will still say it is an 'assault rifle'. That is why labeling is a tool the anti's and the media use to redefine the truth.
__________________
From C3Shooter:
Skullcrusher, you are evil, sick, demented, twisted- and my hero!


Quote:
Originally Posted by pandamonium View Post
...without the Second, we cannot protect the rest!
skullcrusher is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 06:00 PM   #26
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 89
Default Rights vs. Responsibilities...

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
I'll bet that you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in your state and if not, you do in several neighboring states. The same goes for wearing a seat belt when you ride in a car. That's your home state dictating to you that they know what is best for your own safety and that they know this better than you do.
I think one of the fundamental mistakes of the Founding Fathers was in not drafting a 2nd document, the Bill of Responsibilities. Too often, people forget that their actions have consequences that go far beyond their own limited area/family/resources, and so they should have indicated some universal responsibilities. For example, if you have children, you WILL care for them properly. If you do not, you will not be allowed to have any more, and those you have may be removed. Some sort of compulsory service would be required of all adults, whether it be in the military, something akin to the WPA from the Depression, the Peace Corps, etc. 2 years of service (or a lifetime, as in Switzerland) is not unreasonable, given what you receive in return.

You note about the requirements for wearing a helmet or seatbelt. IMHO, these are non-issues. The data is unequivocal that their use saves lives and reduces the severity of injuries. Why would you NOT use such devices, when the facts speak for themselves? What a shame that we must force someone to help themselves.

You indicate a preference for the Libertarian Party; I lean toward the overall themes behind the Party. If you want to ride without a helmet, fine. However, don't expect me to foot your lifetime of care when you become a vegetable due to traumatic brain injury. When we've taken all your money (and put your family on the street), then we'll pull the plug on you. Your choice, your consequences.

I had a brother-in-law who does not wear his seatbelt. He developed an irrational fear of being trapped in a burning vehicle (about 5% of all auto accidents). You cannot convince him that he is more likely to escape if he has not been rendered unconscious or immobile in the accident, a very likely outcome when a belt is not worn.
indy_kid is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 06:47 PM   #27
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
orangello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 19,154
Liked 5738 Times on 3362 Posts
Likes Given: 4877

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_kid View Post
Some sort of compulsory service would be required of all adults, whether it be in the military, something akin to the WPA from the Depression, the Peace Corps, etc. 2 years of service (or a lifetime, as in Switzerland) is not unreasonable, given what you receive in return.

What a shame that we must force someone to help themselves.
On your first point, this becomes more and more debatable with each passing day, IMO. How would this be applied to undocumented/illegal immigrants?

On your second point, i wonder who else in history has used that as a justification for totalitarian control of a people. (Hitler comes to mind, but his big thing was anti-smoking programs)
orangello is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 07:36 PM   #28
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
robocop10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Austin,Texas, by God!!
Posts: 10,849
Liked 3462 Times on 1786 Posts
Likes Given: 375

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skullcrusher View Post
Very well put, robo. Unfortunately the Brady's definition and the US military's definition of 'assault rifle' differ, as you have stated in regards to the true definition. If you show Joe/Jane Commonperson on the street a pic of an AR-15 and a close up of the selector switch and there is no 'burst' or 'auto', they will still say it is an 'assault rifle'. That is why labeling is a tool the anti's and the media use to redefine the truth.
Freaking Sarah Brady and her co-conspirators in the media had contrived a definition that has no basis in fact. They could just as easily label V-8 cars as "Assault Vehicles" and try to ban them.....Oh wait, didn't they already start that movement by trying to ban SUV's?
__________________
In life, strive to take the high road....It offers a better field of fire.
"Robo is right" Fuzzball
robocop10mm is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 07:47 PM   #29
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Yunus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: |,Maryland
Posts: 5,178
Liked 1417 Times on 838 Posts
Likes Given: 437

Default

A couple times I have seen polls put up on places like Fark and people are asked which is more dangerous, which is an assault rifle.
Question on mentally challenged thieves - Survival & Sustenance Living Forum
or
Question on mentally challenged thieves - Survival & Sustenance Living Forum

Most who are not familiar with guns will respond that the top picture is clearly an assault rifle while the bottom is a hunting rifle.

The answer is, they the same gun. Both are Ruger 10/22's which fire .22LR ammo.

An example like this could go a long way. It can show people that looks don't matter, flip side could be that if someone is really against guns, this might just make them against all guns not just ones that look dangerous.
__________________
"Good people drink good beer."
Hunter S. Thompson
Yunus is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 08:25 PM   #30
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by indy_kid View Post
I think one of the fundamental mistakes of the Founding Fathers was in not drafting a 2nd document, the Bill of Responsibilities. Too often, people forget that their actions have consequences that go far beyond their own limited area/family/resources, and so they should have indicated some universal responsibilities. For example, if you have children, you WILL care for them properly. If you do not, you will not be allowed to have any more, and those you have may be removed. Some sort of compulsory service would be required of all adults, whether it be in the military, something akin to the WPA from the Depression, the Peace Corps, etc. 2 years of service (or a lifetime, as in Switzerland) is not unreasonable, given what you receive in return.

You note about the requirements for wearing a helmet or seatbelt. IMHO, these are non-issues. The data is unequivocal that their use saves lives and reduces the severity of injuries. Why would you NOT use such devices, when the facts speak for themselves? What a shame that we must force someone to help themselves.

You indicate a preference for the Libertarian Party; I lean toward the overall themes behind the Party. If you want to ride without a helmet, fine. However, don't expect me to foot your lifetime of care when you become a vegetable due to traumatic brain injury. When we've taken all your money (and put your family on the street), then we'll pull the plug on you. Your choice, your consequences.

I had a brother-in-law who does not wear his seatbelt. He developed an irrational fear of being trapped in a burning vehicle (about 5% of all auto accidents). You cannot convince him that he is more likely to escape if he has not been rendered unconscious or immobile in the accident, a very likely outcome when a belt is not worn.
Well said. If I screw the pooch, I did it to myself, I don't expect you to foot the bill for my stupidity. I fully subscribe to the Libertarian ideal of personal responsibly. True freedom can only come with true personal responsibility.

The examples were just that, simplified examples. They are however something that everyone can relate to. Some of the more obscure and more ominous examples don't relate to everyone.

Both of the more popular parties want to take my freedom in one way or another. The conservatives want to take civil liberties. The liberals want to take my person freedom and my money.

This country was founded with the notion that every man is free to do what he wants as long as he doesn't infringe on another man's rights. Neither of the popular parties embrace that concept. To ignore the basic premise behind America is unamerican and therefor, both of the popular parties are unamerican.

The Libertarian party is the only party that believes in these principals that America was founded on. It expects Americans to take responsibility for their own actions. It's only flaw is that Americans want the government to tell them what is right. It's just easier that way.

In the process of the government running peoples' lives, evolution and Social Darwinism have fallen by the wayside. It's truly a sad state that our country and it's people have devolved into. Americans are fat and lazy and dependent on their government to dictate their actions and responsibilities.

I, for one, look forward to pandemics to help bring the country back to what it was 100 years ago. I, for one, look forward to a revolution to return this country to what it was 200 years ago. Sadly the government will ensure that neither happen. It's a sad state of affairs. All one man can do is take part in grassroots efforts to support the right political party and vote along party lines.
__________________
"'Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky? "
Roger Waters

Vote freedom, join the Libertarian Party.

Last edited by matt g; 07-13-2009 at 08:29 PM.
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Homeowners Open Fire With AK-47 On Thieves sculker The Club House 18 03-01-2009 05:07 AM



Newest Threads