fixed that for ya.
Gun Control
You can pretend that the desire to not be out gunned by the people they are apprehending is not a major factor but that doesn't make it true. Of course, the article you link to acknowledges as much but you would rather ignore that.
They are indeed ramping up, but it has little to do with a .50BMG round that can defeat every single piece of armor they already have....
It has more to do with crime elements having higher powered rifles. which they have had for decades (I know this because I'm working with some of these 'militarized' police).
I would much rather apprehend a suspect in a raid who's holding a .50bmg than a .22lr revolver......
Last edited:
So...not because of high powered rifles but instead because of high powered rifles? Unsuccessful troll is indeed unsuccessful.
what about assault rifles?
If you cannot differentiate between a bolt action, .50bmg rifle, and an AK47, you need to leave this thread now.
If you think the police are geared up because of .50bmg's, you need to leave the thread now.
If you think the police aren't geared up because criminal elements have (and have had for a long time) AK's and have increased in numbers due to social and economical factors, you can leave.
Or you can stop trying to talk about what you know little about and learn a thing or two: The police aren't geared up because of .50BMGs.
ftfy.
I hear adding that pistol grip to a light 5.56 rifle makes it more powerful than a .50 BMG.
And adding the name 'assault' makes it able to spray 300 round clips in 3 seconds.
no doubt both pkg lots are filled w/ lifted cummins diesels
There's a bbq and beer joint next door called BJ's!!
how else are you supposed to get those Mega-Double_Gargantua Packs of toilet paper home?
Well now I'm just totally confused about what the point of gun control is. Are we trying to stop murders, or trying to stop the militarization of police? If I give up my high powered rifles, will cops give up theirs?
Define "over militarize", what level of militarization is acceptable, and what is not?
You do touch on something than many on the left won't even respond to, and that is limiting law enforcement in the same way you limit "lesser" citizens, don't know if that was your intent, but it stands to reason that if arming citizens means arming cops, than disarming citizens should mean disarming cops. Ban standard capacity mags for personal possession, ban them for officers too. Refuse to issue carry permits for citizens, no off-duty carry for cops.
Had he killed 1000 people with a gun I'd still feel the same. What does it have to do with my statement? He wanted to kill, he chose a gun because it was available. Had the gun not been available, he'd have still wanted to kill, and in his years of planning, you don't think he'd have found another way?
Does his lack of success in killing with a gun and the responding officer's lack of success in the shoot-out say anything about the efficacy of firearms as killing tools?
I stand by my statement, take the guns away and he still killed three and injured several with his Bimmer, that's every bit as wrong as the 3 he killed with a gun, and would be just as wrong as killing 50 with a gun. Murder is murder, it's decidedly sicker to kill scores of people instead of just one, but no more or less wrong.
Nope, I'll stay. It's my thread.
They are geared up because of all of this wannabe commando crap that no one really needs. You can try the diversion tactic breaking it down to specific guns but that is a pretty lame argument.
BTW, I would be very surprised is you had spent more time shooting than I have.
any coward can hold a gun and pull the trigger. eventually they'll hit/kill someone. blind squirrel / forest / acorn.
a knife takes dedication, because you have to get up close within arms reach. and then physically stab. you don't see anyone in a rascal scooter wielding a knife.
a knife takes dedication, because you have to get up close within arms reach. and then physically stab. you don't see anyone in a rascal scooter wielding a knife.
if you've never shot a minority breaking into your home, you have NO credibility here
a doublewide doesn't count as a home.
elitist.
This is a fairly important point. As a liberal, I don't like the over militarization. I also hold the once conservative desire to not put our LEOs at risk. The irony here is that those who most object to the "Jack Booted Thugs" are the ones actively causing a circular escalation.
To answer your question, I would be conflicted but would ultimately support a drone strike on this motherfvcker.
less circular escalation, more self-fulfilling prophecy.
I think you have me confused with Bizutch.
Last edited:
No, it just means they are designed to kill humans.
This is what I'm talking about. Knife/baseball bat/bare hands. I wanna be up close and personal, I'm going to need to vent. Guns have no place in a proper crime of passion. If you need a gun, I question your dedication.
You are basing that on opinion and not on what the Police say. I used an example and you strawman the ****out of it. Lame.
Also, its possible but highly unlikely. And if so thats sad because you clearly dont understand firearms to the degree you think you do, which is evident by your BMG theory.
lastly, when needs and wants are dictated is when you have a dictatorship not a democracy. Is it really up to you to determine what a persons wants are? Do we need a car with more than 100hp? Do we need anything other than shelter food and clothing? Sorry but the argument for needs and wants is so far beyond futile lets agree to pretend you didnt say it.
Last edited:
Worst argument ever. The term is defined by select fire, not the asthetics of a rifle.
rem 700 was designed to do both. Muzzleloaders were designed to kill people. Are muskets and lee enfeilds asault rifles? See how that doesnt actually make sense?
Select fire, or dont bring it up like its an actual term.
Last edited:
Really doubling down on this terminology thing, aren't you? I will let you in on a secret. If you are trying to talk to someone who isn't a gun nut, they don't care about your preferred terminology.
No I honestly thought I was talking to people who call things by their real names. Its akin to husein obama and bull**** like that. I just find it funny how both sides are so alike at the end of the day 
Back to the semantics argument I see.
Clip. Clip! CLIP!!!!!!
Clip. Clip! CLIP!!!!!!
Unless you call it the pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew, your argument is invalid.
Back? Never started there.
Nor do I wish to kill someone with a knife...... prime predisposed to violence hoplophope right there...
No, you didn't. But there are several examples in this long and tired thread, where the argument of every "gun rights advocate" eventually breaks down to a desperate clinging of terminology as proof of point. Which exactly is where this latest round of argument by the uninitiated has, inevitably, lead. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Have you ever looked up "assault" in the dictionary?
Do you know what the first "assault rifle" is considered to be?
Do you know what the slang name of that rifle was?
Please research this and get back to me.
Yes, if it's intended to mame or kill humans, and it's a rifle, it's an assault rifle.
Even the gun nuts I occasionally shoot with will call them "clips" sometimes. These guys build AR 15s for hobby.
It's like "my bad", as much as you want to resist it, it's common terminology now.
Here’s the thing, schematics aren’t usually important. They tend to be distractions and ways to circumvent the topic at hand. But in this case, the term ‘assault’ is used, knowingly erroneously, to garner an emotional reaction from the general public in an attempt to sway opinion . The only people who use the term to describe civilian product are media (reliable?) and politicians (reliable?).
Assault rifle:
Wiki describes it as select fire, because when the term was coined (by a German) it was only called that because of that exact feature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
The US Defense Departments’ Defense Intelligence Agency book “Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide” states:
Based on that definition, by both the creator and the DOD, the SA AR-15 based (AR means Armalite Rifle) rifles you are describing (which look a certain way, thus you’ve pegged them to be something they are not) are not, by any definition assault rifles, and use of the term is nothing more than an attempt to demonize them by way of misusing terms and definitions. This isn’t semantics now, but rather fabrications which have no place in a discussion between reasonable minds.
Military also doesn’t use the term. They just needed to define it. They call these exact rifles: Carbines, Rifles, SBR’s, DMR’s. Not ‘assault rifles’. So ultimately, it’s just used by certain people to demonize an inanimate object by placing an adjective in front of it in an attempt to create a belief that this inanimate object has a mens rea.
Designed to _____
The flaw in this is simple. The military’s select fire rifles are ‘designed to kill’ initially, however as we already concluded we don’t get those (well, most of us that don’t have 20k don’t). To further dissect that theory, is that since the object has no mens rea, it can in fact be used for other things , which in 99.999% of cases (judging by how small a percentage these are actually used in the commission of crime), they are. So at this point, you have AR style SA rifles used to hunt and target shoot in numbers so vast it changes the ‘design intent’ across the entire industry. In fact, the AR style rifle has become the most popular sporting rifle in America, and with good reason (good design with stoners piston, or accuracy with DI, very ergonomic, cheap, easy to clean in the field when hunting, very accurate, lightweight, etc etc). They are used by many, many hunters (thanks to it being available in many calibers now), and even more sport shooters. They are designed to shoot, and the user creates the actus reus.
Furthermore, like I already illustrated, there are rifles designed to hunt that are used to L.E. and Mil (rem 700, 870, etc etc), so if something goes one way, it can clearly go the other. Taking a great design that’s been developed over the years, and attempting to peg it as being for one use and one use only, is erroneous. The fact that hundreds of thousands are used for predator control by farmers, wild bore hunting, marksmanship competitions, and other legal applications shows that the actual use of these Semi Auto rifles isn’t designed for anything other than emitting a projectile, being ergonomic, and easy to clean (something it was actually ‘designed’ to do).
So let’s stop with the attempts to discredit and demonize things. It can’t help evolve the topic at hand, and just lends to partisan bickering.
Last edited:
Dont you live in Canadia? Why not come on down to the US of A if you love the gun culture so much?