No, they don't.
13-year old not allowed to fly American flag at school.
- Thread starter Tiberius Jim
- Start date
Eery. We agree again.
Please elaborate that section please, I'm not quite sure if I understood it properly. Do you mean that there are no such thing as assault weapons? If so, what would you call a high powered military style weapon?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
It was a random tangent. It's a fairly unique part of our government that recognizes explicitly a protection for firearms. Of course, the thread was about the first amendment, then an attempt was made to shift it to a right-left divide. That's where the second amendment came in. We can easily go back to just the first amendment little kids with flags debate instead. Or we can talk about another amendment (I prefer the 3rd).
With pleasure. You see, the term 'assault weapon' is completely contrived. Its essentially a combination of cosmetic features on a basic semi-auto rifle.
That might sound ridiculous, but when you look at the legislation that is exactly what it uses as criteria: appearance. Essentially, if it looks scary its banned.
A civilian market AK rifle is built so that in only fires one shot per pull of the trigger. A military one will fire that way and fully automatic (As long as you hold it down it will keep firing). The only difference between this:
And this:
Is that one looks scary. They have literally the exact same function and capabilities.
I also don't understand everyone's use of the term 'high-powered.' An AK 47 fires a 7.62x39mm round. The sixty year old Mosin Nagant in my closet fires a 7.62x54. Since that round, and almost any hunting caliber for that matter, is far more deadly, it doesn't make sense to call something a civilian AK or an AR15 'high-powered.'
They might resemble military weapons superficially, but they lack the same functions.
Did that help any? I enjoy getting the chance to break down the details, most people never even question the definition.
Must be the Age of Aquarius.
Which means nothing.
Do you support my Right to not quarter troops? Do you?!
"Assault weapon" is a vague, made-up term that doesn't really mean anything.
Assault rifle, however, is an actual term that means something precise. An assault rifle is a military weapon that is designed to combine the functions of both a conventional rifle and a submachine gun.
It does this in a number of ways:
--by allowing the user to select either semi-automatic or automatic fire;
--by firing either a full-sized bullet at a lower velocity (like the AK-47) or a smaller bullet at a higher velocity (like the M-16) to reduce recoil;
--by incorporating a large magazine (typically 30 rounds).
This, as I said, allows the soldier to use his assault rifle either as a rifle (firing aimed single shots at medium to long range) or as a submachine gun (firing bursts at short range).
One could argue that the submachine gun was the first "assault weapon," since it was designed to be used by attacking troops in place of the bolt-action rifle and bayonet. And I have seen that term used by military historians to mean both assault rifles and submachine guns.
But the term itself seems to have been invented by gun-control advocates, who use it very vaguely to mean just about anything that is not a bolt-action hunting rifle or a double-barreled shotgun.
Really, if the school had told those Hispanic kids "Too bad, so sad" they'd probably have gotten over it and nothing would have come of it. We live in a society that is so terrified of offending anybody that they're willing to trod on their own toes to avoid harming anybody's sensibilities.
I was being facetious as usual. AlidarJ mentioned earlier on that he thought kids chanting the pledge of allegiance might seem creepy to other nations and I said no it didn't. I do find the quasi-religous nature of many Americans' attitude to guns very creepy, however. Enough of this. Back to flags on bikes.
There's nothing remotely religious about it. Its a hobby, like keeping pet rats. But unlike most other collectors, we have to deal with public pressure (usually rather ignorant public pressure) against the hobby. Naturally we're protective of it if thats what you meant. Personally I always find it offensive when people assume you're a serial-killer gang member because you have a few rifles.
I do get worried when people think the biggest threat of the government is that they'll take away their guns (if their bumper stickers are any indication). The fact is that no state has ever attempted to ban guns in their entirety and neither has the federal government).
But I just hate hyperbolic catchphrases and "keep your hands off my guns" certainly qualifies as one.
But I just hate hyperbolic catchphrases and "keep your hands off my guns" certainly qualifies as one.
Our AK-47
Lord in Gunstores
Hallowed be thy bullets...
This American has the same worries.
If you're gonna do that, at least make it fit syllabically...
Our 'Deagle'
Which art in gun stores
Hallowed be they slugs
Our AK-47
Lord in Gunstores
Hallowed be thy bullets...
This American has the same worries.
I'm with you, my brother from another mother!
So is, "Guns were DESIGNED to kill" in the context of the comparative deadliness of things.
No, because guns were designed to kill people. That's why they were invented.
'Guns' were designed to demolish walls. Matchlocks were designed to take down knights. Kentucky Long Rifles were designed to hunt deer. A Barret M82A1 is designed to disable vehicles. An Anschutz 1903 is designed to hit targets.
Not all weapons are created equal. What equalizes them is the shooter.
Throughout history most of mankind's technologies have been centered on war. That doesn't mean they are all solely for that purpose.
But what does the intent of the design of a thing have to do with the deadliness of that thing?
Let me put it another way.
Which is more deadly? Automobiles, which were not designed to kill, but have killed a shit-ton more people in the U.S. than firearms have?
Or firearms, which were designed to kill?
Similar threads
