Since the assault weapons ban is lifted, what guns are now legal?

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Can we ban wings and spoilers to prevent people from racing on the streets?

If only that worked.

- M4H

probably about as well as our thousands of gun laws stop gun crime.

 

[TheNinja]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Jon Stewart has the AK's number 1 thru 46

"I want to shoot a deer, so that after i've shot him there's nothing left. And you look and say where'd he go and it's just a puddle" ~Jon Stewart


there's really no logical reason for assult weapons. if i recall the reason the ban got started in the first place was when two thugs robbed a bank outside LA with a pair of AK-47's and body armor, they never got away and instead were *surrounded* by police within 10min out of the bank. and by *surround* i mean a bunch of LAPD cowering behind brick walls, trees, and post office boxes.

the body armor made them invincible and the assualt rifles made them walking tanks. each crook fired hundreds of shots wounding a total of 12 or 13 officers. each withstood 1000 bullets over the course of the hour hitting their armor. about 6-7 actually made it in some weak spots so both died or something.

over 2000+ rounds were fired in that incident

Don't you think a .50 cal sniper rifle would take care of any "body armor" the guys had on? It seems that now days most SWAT teams should have a .50 cal or at least access to one quickly. I find it hard to believe that any sort of personal armor or vest would stop it.

 

[azncoffeeboi]

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Jon Stewart has the AK's number 1 thru 46

"I want to shoot a deer, so that after i've shot him there's nothing left. And you look and say where'd he go and it's just a puddle" ~Jon Stewart


there's really no logical reason for assult weapons. if i recall the reason the ban got started in the first place was when two thugs robbed a bank outside LA with a pair of AK-47's and body armor, they never got away and instead were *surrounded* by police within 10min out of the bank. and by *surround* i mean a bunch of LAPD cowering behind brick walls, trees, and post office boxes.

the body armor made them invincible and the assualt rifles made them walking tanks. each crook fired hundreds of shots wounding a total of 12 or 13 officers. each withstood 1000 bullets over the course of the hour hitting their armor. about 6-7 actually made it in some weak spots so both died or something.

over 2000+ rounds were fired in that incident

You're an idiot.

Fully automatic weapons have been regulated since the 30's. The AWB of 1994 did nothing but ban cosmetic features on semi-automatic weapons. It said you can't have more than 2 of the following: pistol grip, removable magazine, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, flash supressor, grenade launcher (don't worry, grenades are very hard to get).

So after the ban, what did we have? The same gun with a fake flash supressor, a pinned out stock so it wouldn't collapse and no bayonet lug or grenade launcher. THE SAME GUN shooting the same ammo with the same accuracy.

The AWB did nothing but hinder collectors and responsible gun owners.

:beer:

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Jon Stewart has the AK's number 1 thru 46

"I want to shoot a deer, so that after i've shot him there's nothing left. And you look and say where'd he go and it's just a puddle" ~Jon Stewart


in my opinion there's really no logical reason for assult weapons . if i recall i'm too lazy to do fair research so i'll use lies to spread my point as these aren't fact based statements i'm about to make the reason the ban got started in the first place was when two thugs robbed a bank outside LA with a pair of AK-47's and body armor which happened in 1997 3 years after the ban was put in place, they never got away and instead were *surrounded* by police within 10min out of the bank. and by *surround* i mean a bunch of LAPD cowering behind brick walls, trees, and post office boxes. and just think how quickly it would have been over had the police been allowed to carry rifles as well

the body armor made them invincible cus see class 2 body armour stops pistol rounds and that's it so that's invincible IMO and the assualt i'm still learning english rifles made them walking tanks. each crook fired hundreds even though barrels on these guns overheat at 250 rounds but hundreds sounds better right? of shots wounding a total of 12 or 13 officers i didn't research but 12 or 13 sounds right and not a single one was killed even though these things are so powerful when they hit deer it just vaporizes. each withstood 1000 bullets over the course of the hour hitting their armor even though NO body armour can take repeated impacts in the same location from any caliber weapon other then a bb gun. about 6-7 actually made it in some weak spots but remember they were invincible so both died or something. not sure what happened hence my use of the word or

over 2000+ rounds were fired in that incident and to think if the police had rifles in their vehicles it would have been over before it started

-Nice try with the jon steward quote...too bad if you had any knowledge of firearms and regulations as well as capabilities you'd know that quote is a gross fallacy. AK-47's are substantially LESS powerful then most deer rifle. Can't say it suprises me because most anti-gun types base their logics on perception and scare tactics- never verifiable facts.

-"If I recall" basically means you don't know what you're talking about and you're making a point without doing diligent research. That bank robbery happened in 1997 with full auto weapons that have been governed since 1934. Again 1997, hmm isn't that 3 years after the assault weapon ban was implemented? Looks like it did alot of good there. Maybe it's because criminals don't follow laws in the first place.

-This expired ban had absolutely NOTHING to do with full auto weapons which are still highly regulated.

-1000 bullets hit their armour? LOL and the police never managed to hit them in the head once? Wow you'd think the law of averages would preclude that. Your statements are absolutely ridiculous. Watch the tapes- the cops are hiding behind stuff while they fire and rarely firing. On top of that if those police had a decent chief they'd all have a rifle riding with them in their vehicle. Unfortunately most police chiefs are liberal politicians.

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Staley8

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Jon Stewart has the AK's number 1 thru 46

"I want to shoot a deer, so that after i've shot him there's nothing left. And you look and say where'd he go and it's just a puddle" ~Jon Stewart


there's really no logical reason for assult weapons. if i recall the reason the ban got started in the first place was when two thugs robbed a bank outside LA with a pair of AK-47's and body armor, they never got away and instead were *surrounded* by police within 10min out of the bank. and by *surround* i mean a bunch of LAPD cowering behind brick walls, trees, and post office boxes.

the body armor made them invincible and the assualt rifles made them walking tanks. each crook fired hundreds of shots wounding a total of 12 or 13 officers. each withstood 1000 bullets over the course of the hour hitting their armor. about 6-7 actually made it in some weak spots so both died or something.

over 2000+ rounds were fired in that incident

Don't you think a .50 cal sniper rifle would take care of any "body armor" the guys had on? It seems that now days most SWAT teams should have a .50 cal or at least access to one quickly. I find it hard to believe that any sort of personal armor or vest would stop it.

You don't even need a 50cal.... 5.56 will go right thru body armour unless it has rifle plates. In 1997 you would be hard pressed to find body armour with those plates. And seeing as how the police used ar-15's to stop them I'm guessing they didn't have them.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Staley8
Don't you think a .50 cal sniper rifle would take care of any "body armor" the guys had on? It seems that now days most SWAT teams should have a .50 cal or at least access to one quickly. I find it hard to believe that any sort of personal armor or vest would stop it.

Hell, 50-cal is used to take down light vehicles. For a human target, it would make an exit wound about the size of a basketball. :Q

- M4H

 

[PanzerIV]

It makes no difference to me that it's lifted. I still can't afford any of the more exotic guns regardless!

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Staley8
Don't you think a .50 cal sniper rifle would take care of any "body armor" the guys had on? It seems that now days most SWAT teams should have a .50 cal or at least access to one quickly. I find it hard to believe that any sort of personal armor or vest would stop it.

Hell, 50-cal is used to take down light vehicles. For a human target, it would make an exit wound about the size of a basketball. :Q

- M4H

Any rifle can be used to take down a light vehicle. How light depends on your definition. If we're referring to a regular SUV you can do that with almost any rifle. If you're referring to an up-armoured vehicle then a 50 cal would be beneficial. To use the war in iraq as a good example a 50 cal would pierce the new armoured humvees but not the bradley or abrams. A regular ak would go through the normal humvees just fine.

-Not going against what you said- just know that their will be people on here who start talking about .50 cal bans even though they won't be able to link to a crime committed with a .50 cal because noone pays 5-8grand for a weapon to use it in crime.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Barrett 50 cal