Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

NEW Obama Assault Rifle Laws

Couple points.

One, IT'S NOT EVEN A BAN! They call it a ban, but it doesn't ban anything. All the last "ban" did was prohibit manufacture and import of NEW items, it didn't make anything illegla, just made it cost more for no reason. As said above, banning manufacture ONLY takes away jobs. It doesn't make the rifle illegal, it just makes it more expensive because you can't get new ones, only ones that already exist and are in the country. Therefore, it does NOTHING to prevent crimes. Absolutely nothing, since it doens't even make anything illegal anyway.

Two, "assault weapon" is an idiotic term. It's 100% cosmetic. It's not an "assault weapon ban", it's a "scary looking gun ban". For example, the AR-15 vs. the Ruger Mini-14 (see photos). The AR-15 is "scary looking", so assault weapon bans certainly apply to it. But wait a minute, the Mini-14 is basically exactly the same thing! A .223 semi-automatic rifle that takes removable clips. But it's not scary looking at all, so it's not considered an assault weapon. Pure idiocy!

So basically, this law does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who want them, and people who are already willing to commit crimes anyway. all it does it make things more expensive for the law-abiding citizens who want them, with no gain in safety.


AR-15
AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine.JPG



vs.


Ruger Mini-14
mini14.jpg
 





Re: NEW Obama Assult Rifle Laws

Tech_Junkie said:
Me thinks he doesn't work gun manufacture either.
Click to expand...

People in the industry do not use the term "assault" rifles

People in the industry clearly understand the "difference" between a "semi-automatic" rifle and an "assault" rifle

For example:   It's tough to get "fully jacketed, serplus (sp), plinking rounds" outlawed.  However, who could argue against outlawing "metal piercing, cop-killers"?

jander6442 said:
Ban them all or none [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif] cause more peole die in US from 22 cal. than anything.
Click to expand...


You have to be just as careful with these kinds of statistics.  The number of people killed with "22 caliber" bullets has a problem with reality.  You see 22cal bullets are .224 inch in diameter.   AR-15 rifles use the Remington .223.  When compiling that statistic anyone killed with a Remington .223 or .224 type bullet was included in the number of people killed with 22 caliber bullets.  This number, of course, also includes anyone killed with a cartridge designated 5.56mm by NATO.  If you are shooting an AR-15 based weapon, using serplus (sp) 5.56mm military rounds, you are shooting a 22 caliber gun!  Also, the statistic includes anyone killed with a 22 caliber handgun

Peace,
dave
 
Re: NEW Obama Assult Rifle Laws

daguin said:
[quote author=Tech_Junkie link=1235662010/0#9 date=1235671099]
Me thinks he doesn't work gun manufacture either.
Click to expand...

People in the industry do not use the term "assault" rifles

[highlight]People in the industry clearly understand the "difference" between a "semi-automatic" rifle and an "assault" rifle[/highlight]

For example:   It's tough to get "fully jacketed, serplus (sp), plinking rounds" outlawed.  However, who could argue against outlawing "metal piercing, cop-killers"?

jander6442 said:
Ban them all or none [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif] cause more peole die in US from 22 cal. than anything.
Click to expand...


You have to be just as careful with these kinds of statistics.  The number of people killed with "22 caliber" bullets has a problem with reality.  You see 22cal bullets are .224 inch in diameter.   AR-15 rifles use the Remington .223.  When compiling that statistic anyone killed with a Remington .223 or .224 type bullet was included in the number of people killed with 22 caliber bullets.  Also, the statistic includes anyone killed with a 22 caliber handgun

Peace,
dave[/quote]

I don't know where you are from, but yes we do use the term Assault Rifles mainly due to the set of rules that the government made up to define an Assault Rifle.  It has absolutly nothing to do with Semi-auto or Full-auto.

A littly FYI for ya: AR15s are not confined to only using the 5.56 nato round.  The ones that we make can use a .308, .204 rugger, 7.62X39, and so on.

[highlight]Primarily limited to the United States, the term assault weapon is a political term, separate from the military definition, used to describe a variety of semi-automatic firearms that have certain features associated with military or police firearms, which are optimized for combat situations against human targets. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Barrel shroud[/highlight]



Just felt like posting this image.  Yes that is a M203 Grenade Launcher. [highlight]IS THIS LEGAL!!! I LOVE MY JOB[/highlight]
DSCN07501.jpg
 
Re: NEW Obama Assult Rifle Laws

iskor12 said:
I don't know where you are from, but yes we do use the term Assault Rifles mainly due to the set of rules that the government made up to define an Assault Rifle.  It has absolutly nothing to do with Semi-auto or Full-auto.
Click to expand...


If you have started using the term you are helping to dig your own grave.  "Semi-automatic" rifles have a sporting and recreational use.  "Assault" rifles do not.  
I have seen the enemy, and he is us.



iskor12 said:
A littly FYI for ya: AR15s are not confined to only using the 5.56 nato round.  The ones that we make can use a .308, .204 rugger, 7.62X39, and so on.
Click to expand...

I know this.  That's why I specifically mentioned .223, .224, and 5.56mm bullets in the statement

Peace,
dave
 
Re: NEW Obama Assult Rifle Laws

daguin said:
[quote author=iskor12 link=1235662010/16#18 date=1235678616]

I don't know where you are from, but yes we do use the term Assault Rifles mainly due to the set of rules that the government made up to define an Assault Rifle.  It has absolutly nothing to do with Semi-auto or Full-auto.
Click to expand...


If you have started using the term you are helping to dig your own grave.  "Semi-automatic" rifles have a sporting and recreational use.  "Assault" rifles do not.  
I have seen the enemy, and he is us.



iskor12 said:
[highlight]A littly FYI for ya: AR15s are not confined to only using the 5.56 nato round.  The ones that we make can use a .308, .204 rugger, 7.62X39, and so on.
Click to expand...

I know this.  That's why I specifically mentioned .223, .224, and 5.56mm bullets in the statement[/highlight]
Peace,
dave
[/quote]


Also, I don't like the fact that we do use the term Assault Rifle for a Semi-Auto.  But when you manufacture weapons in the USA, you don't really have a choice not to classify a weapon an assault weapon when it fits the set of rules that our government made especially in a closely monitored buisness such as the manufacturing of weapons.

You are 100% correct  that Quote ""Semi-automatic" rifles have a sporting and recreational use.  "Assault" rifles do not. "


[highlight]Just to let you know, this wasn't all directed at you.  I just wanted to try make things clear for all people.  I am sorry if I angered you in any way.[/highlight]
 
I fail to see how you're going to hunt with one of these, and how often do you need to shoot through armor or bayonet someone in the course of defending your house? What's the point? Can you name a legitimate use for these? Here in canada we have a ban on assault rifles and our crime rate is much lower, and I've never once heard anyone complain that they can't buy the rifle they need to hunt whole herds of deer at once..

As for losing jobs, well sure, that sucks, but things change. I'm sure the people working at Sony's Betamax factories all were upset that people decided to buy VHS tapes instead, but that's just the way things go.
 
pseudolobster said:
I fail to see how you're going to hunt with one of these, and how often do you need to shoot through armor or bayonet someone in the course of defending your house? What's the point? [highlight]Can you name a legitimate use for these?[/highlight] Here in canada we have a ban on assault rifles and our crime rate is much lower, and [highlight]I've never once heard anyone complain that they can't buy the rifle they need to hunt whole herds of deer at once..[/highlight]
As for losing jobs, well sure, that sucks, but things change. I'm sure the people working at Sony's Betamax factories all were upset that people decided to buy VHS tapes instead, but that's just the way things go.
Click to expand...

Just because a weapon has a bayonett lugg on it, doesn't mean that you will have an use a bayonett.  Infact, I don't know anyone that uses a Bayonett!!!

[highlight]Plenty of people use Assault...excuse me...semi-auto rifles for hunting.  A 5.56 nato round is designed to kill varment(squirels, rabits, and such) not Deer or Elk.  [/highlight]

As for the whole Canada thing and the low crime rate and people not complaining,
why would you complain that you can have an assault rifle, when you guys could never own one to begin with.  You can't miss what you've never had.  
As for the whole crime rate thing, well there are many things that I could say about this, but I will just say this.

USA has a population of 305,880,000
Canada has 33,566,000
You do the math

;)You only know what the media wants you to know. ;)
 
There are TONS of perfectly legitimate uses for the AR-15. It's a very versatile platform, in very good/popular calibers, it is easily customizable to suit your liking with a HUGE aftermarket following, it's very popular in target shooting communities, you can easily hunt with it, etc.

And pseudolobster, your post just shows the lack of knowledge about what constitutes an "assault rifle" according to the US government. Having a bayonet on the gun is silly for most purposes, but if you want one on there, you can do it easily without that bayonet lug (duct tape?). Shoot through armor? That's just silly. That has NOTHING to do with the definitions of an assault rifle, and has WAY more to do what caliber you are using, and what kind of ammo you are using. Since what caliber a rifle is has nothing to do with whether or not it's defined as an "assault rifle", a rifle's ability to shoot through armor has ZERO to do with whether or not it is defined as an assault rifle by the US government. "Assault rifle" is an asinine, political term that has basically nothing to do with the capabilities of a given firearm.

As I said above, a Mini-14 and an AR-15 have basically the EXACT same capabilities, but one is scary looking. Why is an AR-15 any more dangerous than a Mini-14? It's not, but politicians like to pass laws about things that look scary, even if the laws are useless.
 
pullbangdead said:
There are TONS of perfectly legitimate uses for the AR-15.  It's a very versatile platform, in very good/popular calibers, it is easily customizable to suit your liking with a HUGE aftermarket following, it's very popular in target shooting communities, you can easily hunt with it, etc.

And pseudolobster, your post just shows the lack of knowledge about what constitutes an "assault rifle" according to the US government.  Having a bayonet on the gun is silly for most purposes, but if you want one on there, you can do it easily without that bayonet lug (duct tape?).  Shoot through armor?  That's just silly.  That has NOTHING to do with the definitions of an assault rifle, and has WAY more to do what caliber you are using, and what kind of ammo you are using.  Since what caliber a rifle is has nothing to do with whether or not it's defined as an "assault rifle", a rifle's ability to shoot through armor has ZERO to do with whether or not it is defined as an assault rifle by the US government.  "Assault rifle" is an asinine, political term that has basically nothing to do with the capabilities of a given firearm.

As I said above, a Mini-14 and an AR-15 have basically the EXACT same capabilities, but one is scary looking.  Why is an AR-15 any more dangerous than a Mini-14?  It's not, but politicians like to pass laws about things that look scary, even if the laws are useless.
Click to expand...

TRUE, TRUE  THANKS FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH.  

THIS IS NOT DIRECTED TO ANYONE IN PARTICULAR
I KNOW I MAY SOUND LIKE A DUMB *** ON HERE, BUT THE TRUTH IS, I DO WORK FOR A GUN MANUFACTURE AND I CAN ASSEMBLE AND TEAR DOWN A AR15 FASTER THAN MOST PEOPLE CAN IN THE ARMY.  I KNOW ALL OF THE PARTS TO AN AR15 AND M203 GRANADE LAUNCHERS .  IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE ME, THAT'S FINE, BUT PLEASE KEEP THAT TO YOURSELF, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PROVE ANYONE WRONG!!!! :) ;D :)
 
I don't think there's a need for "civilian" gun owners to own fully automatic guns.  Period.  I can't' think of one single use for a continous firing gun.  Now I'm a Montanan.  We ALL own guns here.  Rifles and handguns.  why do you need to go BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG?  Someone please explain this to me.  

In war this is a different story where you want to barrage your enemy with as much lead as possible. Average Joe citizen though isn't in war. I didn't see any war declarations on Deer or Pronghorn or Elk.

Although I don't think it's anybody's right to say what anyone else can and cannot do.  Isn't this defined as Freedom?
 
Kenom said:
I don't think there's a need for "civilian" gun owners to own [highlight]fully automatic guns[/highlight].  Period.  I can't' think of one single use for a continous firing gun.  Now I'm a Montanan.  We ALL own guns here.  Rifles and handguns.  why do you need to go BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG?  Someone please explain this to me.  

In war this is a different story where you want to barrage your enemy with as much lead as possible.  Average Joe citizen though isn't in war.  I didn't see any war declarations on Deer or Pronghorn or Elk.

Although I don't think it's anybody's right to say what anyone else can and cannot do.  Isn't this defined as Freedom?
Click to expand...

THe USA is trying to ban Semi-auto rifles that have the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher
Barrel shroud

This has absolutely nothing to do with it being Full-Auto or Semi-Auto.

I agree, no citizen should own a Full-Auto Rifle.


Wait a second....did you mean Semi-Auto?


I have to go now. I will start responding again tomorrow.
 
Nope just fully automatic. I can understand the need for a semi-automatic. I'm a bad shot. So when I've got that deer in my sights and miss with the first shot, I want to be able to fire of another shot quickly after it.

This does NOT apply to pull the trigger with a barrage of lead following for as long as I hold the trigger down.
 
pseudolobster said:
I fail to see how you're going to hunt with one of these, and how often do you need to shoot through armor or bayonet someone in the course of defending your house? What's the point? Can you name a legitimate use for these? Here in canada we have a ban on assault rifles and our crime rate is much lower, and I've never once heard anyone complain that they can't buy the rifle they need to hunt whole herds of deer at once..
Click to expand...

Are you a Liberal? ::) First off, who says you can't hunt with an AR? You'd obviously look odd lugging it in the bush but it can be done... Also, there is no ban on "assault rifles" in Canada; you simply need to get a "Restricted PAL" and have the gun registered. I fail to see why you are so against these "assault rifles". They are not used illegally(for the most part), generate revenue for the local economy, etc.

Laser pointers for instance; same scenario, different device. Aside from lectures, astronomy, etc, they don't really serve much other purpose. [sarcasm] Maybe we should ban them in fear that someone might down a plane one day[sarcasm/]... Seriously though, banning them will not stop would-be @holes from shining them at planes, cars, etc. You can ban them all you like but it's the legal owners and legitimate users that are affected.

As for your statements about crime rate and firearm ownership, I have to disagree. Anyone that goes through the process of registering their firearms and obtaining the proper licenses is not going to use them to commit crimes. Maybe it's time you started looking at the criminals instead of the legal gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top