I usually stay out of debates like this, but WTF do you even need an assault weapon for anyway? To protect yourself? Yeah, right. A pistol or rifle is just as adequate for that as a semi-automatic. And because, just like that site itself states, you're more likely to be attacked with a crowbar, hammer or baseball bat, in by far most instances pretty much any common household heavy blunt object would suffice.

Call me European, but I find a society where civilians want to own an assault rifle creepy, and a society where civilians think they actually need an assault rifle just to protect themselves scares the living daylights out of me.

And a society with aforementioned qualities that thinks it needs to be given the leadership of the UN?.. WTF! :mad:

Well I'm one of the people that thinks banning all guns is a good idea. I just don't see why you need one... And honestly? An assault rifle? Just plain stupid.

NOTE: "semiautomatic" means that a weapon fires, then chambers the next round, and cocks the weapon. It does not imply that the weapon is an assault weapon. Most pistols, with the exception of some revolvers, are semiautomatic. Many, many rifles are.

Why is banning all guns a terrible idea? I'd honestly rather not get into that...but I don't see how anyone who's adamant about the government infringing upon their rights could possibly want the government to tell them they cannot own a gun.

The fact that some families back home in Appalachia actually keep their family fed (partially) by hunting is immaterial, I guess.

Allright, thanks for pointing that out, I don't know too much about the mechanics of guns.

Wherever people organize themselves into groups (like a country) there are going to be limits to the rights of each individual. Of course advocates of gun ownership will be ticked off when the government revokes their right to own a gun (or never grants it to them in the first place) but that's hardly an argument in the pro-contra debate. But let's indeed not get into that, it's not the issue here.

It is in this argument, yes. Unless they're using assault weapons to hunt, of course. :D

But my question is still: why would a civilian need to own an assault weapon? Normal guns I can understand the reasoning behind, even though I'm not entirely convinced that even that is a good idea. But assault rifles? I mean, come on, you have to draw the line somewhere.

[ 09-29-2005, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: J'aran ]

There is no difference between the assault weapons that would be available and other rifles. Without the automatic fire feature (which you can't have without a very difficult to obtain federal permit), they are simply rifles that look cooler. The assault weapons ban is a mostly cosmetic law.

[ 09-29-2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

I think it is worth mentioning that they are also highly accurate, and as such, make exceedingly good weapons for killing coyotes.

<Font color=ggffcc>Wow, this has remained calm. Must be due to the fact it's in GD as opposed to CE.

Actually, the term 'assualt weapon' did not come into term until as the article pointed out, bill clinton era. So, with that said, there's really nuting else to discuss. Butt, since there are some folks on here that don't grasp it, I'll assist.

This plain Jane looking Remington 7400, is just that. Note, it's a semi-auto (OOH, it fires round after round just by pulling the trigger) caliber? 30.06 US. or 7.62mm X very large. (No direct reference)
This gun can drop anything in North America out to 500m, and smaller (human to deer) out to 750m.
Standard built in 5 round mag. Scope setting, and that's about all folks.
http://www.remington.com/images/firearms/7400wd.jpg

The SKS (OOH, an assualt weapon). Fires round after round with each trigger pull. Is wortless beyond 60m, and I would not place the life of a liberal on it at anything greater than 75m. But ohh, it's menacing looking. In all reality, it's a POS!
Notice that bayonet lug (ooh) What about that detachable magazine well? Notice those antiquated iron sights? Doesn't it just look SO evil? Caliber? 7.62mm x 39 'Russian'
http://www.surplusrifle.com/sks/graphics/full.jpg

Now, what if you really wanted it to look 'evil'?
http://www.rifletech.com/images/sks/sks4.jpg


It'a all about the hype folks. I'd glady give you my SKS if that's all you wanted. It's really a fun gun to shoot, and ammo is 'cheap', but... Now if you wanted my Remington or Seiko! You'd not manage that!


So sorry Ilander, but accuracy is not the strong point. Why else would it come with a 30rd magazine as standard issue?</font>

--------------------
http://www.danasoft.com/sig/FelixonTheProwl.jpg

Talkin' 'bout the AK on that one, Felix...cannot say I like the SKS ;)

EDIT: you do make a good point about the 30rd clip, though.

Prefer shotties, myself, but that's just me. After all, the only critters I ever bother with are birds.

[ 09-30-2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Ilander ]

One has to wonder why civillians require arms that the military use when one's country has a military. Unless of course, it is a citizen's duty to fight one's country's army should it become so corrupt its a dictatorship.

I would have thought that extremists are dangerous enough without giving them firearms, but then - it is your culture - your right to bear arms. I guess this is what happens.

Out of interest, is there another country in the world that demands the right to bear arms as the US does?