• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Whats the diff between an assault rifle & a rifle w/hi-cap mag?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Any weapon is an assault weapon. Especially if it's black.

I used to carry an assault stick when I traveled in sub optimum areas.

DESmK.jpg
 
All guns are the same, the only difference is how many lives they destroy and tears they bring.

So the guns the Allies used during WWII are the same as the ones the Axis forces used?

I'm pretty sure the Germans were using mostly Karbiner 98s, and the Japanese were using their very colorfully named "Type" rifles, while the Americans largely used M1 Garands and Carbines, and the British were using Bren and Enfield stuff.


...oh, and one side was bent on world domination and oppression, while the other side was into hippy shit like freedom.

So tell me mister tardewaffle, how's your blood-stained McDonald's taste?
 
How the hell are we to be expected to overthrow a tyrannical government if we don't have RPGs though? Afghani freedom fighters can't even protect themselves against the US WITH RPGs and mortars, what the fuck are we going to do with just guns?

Why does Obama (and the US gov't in general over time) supply assault weapons and rifles to civilians around the world, and then claim there's no need for civilians to have assault weapons?

How come a Libyan civilian can have an M16 or AK47 delivered to him, and I can't have an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine?

Why are other country's civilians given assault weapons and rifles by our gov't, to protect themselves from their government, but I can't have a 15 round Glock?

Why am I not afforded equal opportunity? 😀
 
Why does Obama (and the US gov't in general over time) supply assault weapons and rifles to civilians around the world, and then claim there's no need for civilians to have assault weapons?

How come a Libyan civilian can have an M16 or AK47 delivered to him, and I can't have an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine?

Why are other country's civilians given assault weapons and rifles by our gov't, to protect themselves from their government, but I can't have a 15 round Glock?

Why am I not afforded equal opportunity? 😀

That's a magnificent point actually. We are basically left to fend for ourselves while other countries get their revolutions instigated. Not fair at all. I really doubt anybody would come to our aid and help instigate 🙁
 
That's a magnificent point actually. We are basically left to fend for ourselves while other countries get their revolutions instigated. Not fair at all. I really doubt anybody would come to our aid and help instigate 🙁

It's funny actually.

Civilians have no need for 20 round magazines unless they are third world civilians. Then they can get them delivered gratis, paid for by the civilians who aren't allowed to have them. 😀
 
This is the Ruger Mini-14. It uses the same bullets (.223) as the AR-15.

mini14q.jpg


But it's made of wood and obviously doesnt look like an assault rifle that u see on TV.

So is there a definition of assault rifle?

Actually, that very well could be an assault rifle...Ruger made the AC556 which was an automatic version of the Mini14 🙂

why can't i own a RPG? right to bear arms?

You can own an RPG legally. If you can own a handgun, you can own an RPG. Afford one?...now that's another issue.
 
So why the AR-15 types are more expensive/popular than the Ruger if both use the same type of ammo?

Not sure what the type of ammo would have to do with the cost of the firearm.

Lots of rifles are chambered for the .223 round. There are bolt actions, semi-autos, single shots, etc.

Among the semi-autos you have different operating systems too.

Ammo type bears little relationship to the cost of the gun.

Even among AR-15's the cost varies greatly by mfg.
 
Why does Obama (and the US gov't in general over time) supply assault weapons and rifles to civilians around the world, and then claim there's no need for civilians to have assault weapons?

How come a Libyan civilian can have an M16 or AK47 delivered to him, and I can't have an AR-15 with a 20 round magazine?

Why are other country's civilians given assault weapons and rifles by our gov't, to protect themselves from their government, but I can't have a 15 round Glock?

Why am I not afforded equal opportunity? 😀

Haha, remind me of this I saw last night:

26004_10151385608526054_1539908156_n_zps642d71ef.jpg
 
So are my guns doing it right or wrong? Maybe they're conflicted. So confused.🙁

To be fair, my buddies revolver did cause him to bleed and "bring on some tears" when the extractor jammed and he cut himself on the machined edge. It seemed much happier after some oiling.

Is gun oil LSD for guns?
 
To be fair, my buddies revolver did cause him to bleed and "bring on some tears" when the extractor jammed and he cut himself on the machined edge. It seemed much happier after some oiling.

Is gun oil LSD for guns?
I believe so and Speer Gold dots are the meth.
 
New York state just passed a law that is would define almost any firearm as an assault weapon and goes too far IMHO.

As for me, I would define an assault rifle or pistol as any firearm that is capable of fully automatic fire, any semiautomatic weapon with a more than six round clip, any shotguns with a barrel length shorter than 18" ( already covered under existing guns law), or any pistol with a detachable stock. ( Again already covered by existing gun laws. I might makes a semi automatic rifle exception for some weapons capable of firing a cartridge to larger than a .22LR.

After than we get on a slippery slope with after market parts. Because law abiding buyer X may buy firearm Y, often a variant of the M-16 that fires .223 Ar-15 cartridge, and suddenly use aftermarket parts to make it into far more lethal assault type weapons that should be banned.

As I would also ban the sale or possession of such parts and add a mandatory stiff prison sentence for mere possession, regardless if installed in any weapon or not!

After that and sadly because gun theft is so frequent, gun registration along with a data base of serial numbers will be needed to track stolen guns. That and background checks can greatly reduce but not totally eliminate senseless gun violence without infringing on the right to own and use firearms.

And in closing, one of the many reasons I oppose the NRA, is because, if legitimate firearm owners can't come up and support sensible firearms laws, we will end up with New York State type laws drafted by idiots instead. And when those laws predictably don't work, the idiots will pass even more idiotic laws.

80 years ago the NRA was in the forefront of drafting sensible gun laws, but lately the NRA is the main problem and not any part of any solution, as the NRA has turning into a socially irresponsible lobbying organization.
 
You are partially correct and also illustrate why people who don't shoot guns shouldn't write gun laws.

Much like the inverse, which is pretty much what the NRA is.

Problem is, neither side will suggest sensible, logical compromise. Instead, we pass highly over-restrictive (in the wrong ways) and under-effective laws. Lose-lose.
 
They already banned "assault weapons". A federal law too. It didn't work. Back then it was 30 and 20 round mags and specific features that characterized an AW. Now suddenly 10 rounds is too many bullets. In another 5 years it will be any gun that can hold more than one round. After that? You guessed it, kiss all guns goodbye.
This is the heart of the NRA' s issue with these gun control laws. #1 They don't work, #2 They represent the slow erosion of the bill of rights which it seems everyone is so willing to give up for this illusion of safety.
And after all if it, people will still be getting slaughtered. Except it will be even easier for the dirt bags to do it. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
 
You are partially correct and also illustrate why people who don't shoot guns shouldn't write gun laws.

Much like the inverse, which is pretty much what the NRA is.

Problem is, neither side will suggest sensible, logical compromise. Instead, we pass highly over-restrictive (in the wrong ways) and under-effective laws. Lose-lose.

What is the "inverse" in this case? And what logical compromise do you recommend?

In truth, Sandy Hook has nothing to do with guns or the NRA. People have just made it that way because they dislike guns and dislike the NRA.
 
Back
Top