What's an Assault Weapon?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Nintendesert

Nintendesert

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2010
7,761
5
0
Most people don't know the difference between a clip and a magazine so I don't expect them to know what actual Assault Rifles are. Americans are a pretty ignorant bunch across the board, it's pretty sad too considering we're all wired into the greatest library every created.
 
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Genx87 said:
What's an Assault Weapon?
Click to expand...

I'd say stuff like this:

goatcatmine.JPG
 
P

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
Assault weapon (n)

1) Any rifle, pistol, or shotgun that makes progressives wet themselves.
2) A gun that did not exist back when Diane Feinstein was growing up in the 1880's
3) A gun people actually want to own
 
F

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,670
271
126
zsdersw

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
An "assault weapon" is a meaningless classification created by government-knows-best nanny-state advocates.
 
T

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
I'm not necessarily advocating this but I think the following would address most people's issues, with the exception of those people who want no restrictions of any kind.

Three classes of firearms requiring 3 levels of training,commitment,background checks.

Class 1 - rifles, shotguns, and handguns that do not have removable magazines and can hold a max of 6-7 rounds. So revolvers, bolt-action rifles, most shotguns.

Class 2 - semi-auto rifles and pistols that fire one round per human finger pull. magazines limited to 30 rounds.

Class 3 - whatever weapons are currently in the category of automatics, and devices that enable class 2 weapons to fire without a human trigger pull.

Class 1 would require about the same thing as is currently required except background checks for all sales and limits on the number purchased which would probably require some sort of record keeping.

Class 2 additionally would require registration and some sort of renewable license that would include ongoing background checks and training. But Class 2 should not be as restrictive as class 3. The goal wouldn't be to restrict ownership but to require a higher level of commitment.

Class 3 restriction would remain the same.
 
Last edited:
tcG

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
No wonder most Americans support a ban... there was a veritable campaign in the media to convince people of it. Not a debate, not a story, a campaign.
 
Murloc

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
in my language "assault weapon" is not a word.
There is the assault rifle and that's it. The rest doesn't have the word "assalto" anywhere close.
 
blankslate

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
Tom said:
I'm not necessarily advocating this but I think the following would address most people's issues, with the exception of those people who want no restrictions of any kind.

Three classes of firearms requiring 3 levels of training,commitment,background checks.

Class 1 - rifles, shotguns, and handguns that do not have removable magazines and can hold a max of 6-7 rounds. So revolvers, bolt-action rifles, most shotguns.

Class 2 - semi-auto rifles and pistols that fire one round per human finger pull. magazines limited to 30 rounds.

Class 3 - whatever weapons are currently in the category of automatics, and devices that enable class 2 weapons to fire without a human trigger pull.

Class 1 would require about the same thing as is currently required except background checks for all sales and limits on the number purchased which would probably require some sort of record keeping.

Class 2 additionally would require registration and some sort of renewable license that would include ongoing background checks and training. But Class 2 should not be as restrictive as class 3. The goal wouldn't be to restrict ownership but to require a higher level of commitment.

Class 3 restriction would remain the same.
Click to expand...

This is actually not a bad idea....

Therefore people will be against it...

However, if you as an armed citizen find yourself in a protracted firefight in which you are reloading and perhaps being shot at by more than one assailant. You are one unlucky SOB or you have done fucked up at some point.

specific to the M-16A2. It is a magazine fed, gas operated, air cooled, shoulder fired weapon. It is chambered for the 5.56 round and capable of firing semi-auto or 3 round burst.

Civilian variants of course leave the manufacturer capable of only semi-auto.


Perhaps a definition should be any weapon based on a weapon designed for the Military or another weapon that can approximated its function and firepower (i.e. accept large capacity magazines).
 
Last edited:
P

Phanuel

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2008
2,304
2
0
Tom said:
Class 2 additionally would require registration and some sort of renewable license that would include ongoing background checks and training. But Class 2 should not be as restrictive as class 3. The goal wouldn't be to restrict ownership but to require a higher level of commitment.
Click to expand...

With the purpose of the 2A being what it is, nope, I can't in good conscious let you place these restrictions on this "class" of firearms. Registries are never used for good purposes for long anyhow. It's just going to allow you to document all of us and then grab everything at once relatively soon.

Registration cannot be allowed, sorry.
 
S

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
blankslate said:
This is actually not a bad idea....

Therefore people will be against it...

However, if you as an armed citizen find yourself in a protracted firefight in which you are reloading and perhaps being shot at by more than one assailant. You are one unlucky SOB or you have done fucked up at some point.
Click to expand...

If I have a hitsquad after me, I'm sure I am not going to be a person that abide by the law anyways. But it would suck for a store owner to have 2 thugs robbing up his story and he doesn't have enough rounds to fully defend himself. So dual wielding it is!
 
P

Puddle Jumper

Platinum Member
Nov 4, 2009
2,835
1
0
Tom said:
I'm not necessarily advocating this but I think the following would address most people's issues, with the exception of those people who want no restrictions of any kind.

Three classes of firearms requiring 3 levels of training,commitment,background checks.

Class 1 - rifles, shotguns, and handguns that do not have removable magazines and can hold a max of 6-7 rounds. So revolvers, bolt-action rifles, most shotguns.

Class 2 - semi-auto rifles and pistols that fire one round per human finger pull. magazines limited to 30 rounds.

Class 3 - whatever weapons are currently in the category of automatics, and devices that enable class 2 weapons to fire without a human trigger pull.

Class 1 would require about the same thing as is currently required except background checks for all sales and limits on the number purchased which would probably require some sort of record keeping.

Class 2 additionally would require registration and some sort of renewable license that would include ongoing background checks and training. But Class 2 should not be as restrictive as class 3. The goal wouldn't be to restrict ownership but to require a higher level of commitment.

Class 3 restriction would remain the same.
Click to expand...

This is a terrible idea. The Remington 870 would be a class 1 weapon while the much less deadly Ruger 10/22 would be a class 2.

How about people who don't know anything about guns stop trying to come up with a magic solution via legislation?
 
xj0hnx

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Puddle Jumper said:
This is a terrible idea. The Remington 870 would be a class 1 weapon while the much less deadly Ruger 10/22 would be a class 2.

How about people who don't know anything about guns stop trying to come up with a magic solution via legislation?
Click to expand...

+1∞

It's getting really old hearing suggestions of how to classify, and regulate firearms from people that don't have the first clue about firearms, and Tom is a prime example. Nothing but pure ignorance, throwing out ideas that make no sense because he doesn't know what he is talking about. Fucking barrel shrouds, "the thing that comes up for the shoulder" :rolleyes:
 
blankslate

blankslate

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2008
8,596
475
126
sigurros81 said:
If I have a hitsquad after me, I'm sure I am not going to be a person that abide by the law anyways
Click to expand...

I think I mentioned that already...
You are one unlucky SOB or you have done fucked up at some point.
Click to expand...
As for the store owner. I wouldn't begrudge him having two (or more weapons)...

You just reminded me of one of my favorite movies to come out recently...

Paraphrased of course...

"Steven, how do you like my, new duds? You know before now I didn't know that burgundy is my color."

"I count six shots."

"I count two guns."
 
Last edited:
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
tcG said:
No wonder most Americans support a ban... there was a veritable campaign in the media to convince people of it. Not a debate, not a story, a campaign.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've been paying attention, but Obama and his admin have publically stated they are going to use their campaign arm to "convince" Americans this is what they want.
 
Broheim

Broheim

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2011
4,592
2
81
assault weapon 101:

64906_10100464784290546_215920685_n.jpg


I got this off the terminallance fb page. it's from the Chicago tribune btw.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom