Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,668 Posts
Walt45,

Another excellent post. I agree, why were Semi-Automatic arms on the banned list in Maryland? As we all know, Assault Weapons are BOTH Semi-auto and Full-automatic, so the 4th Circuit merely says Maryland citizens may continue to own semi-auto arms that Cosmetically resemble Assault Weapons.

Webley
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
The term "Assault Weapon"is not a real type of firearm. It was invented by anti-gun meat heads to scare people into believing that they were in fact Assault Rifles which are capable of full auto fire.

The term assault weapon refers to guns that look scary to people who want to take our guns away. All guns in fact look scary to them, so you see where it was going.

I am glad that more people and our courts seem to be getting smarter about what our right to defend ourselves with firearms really means: that it shall not be infringed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
As Previously Stated "Assault weapon(s)" are Not an Officially Defined Firearm Type.
Therefore it is a 'conglomeration' of terms:
Assault = an Act performed by on e/person upon another.
Weapon = any object used in offense or defense actions by a person against another person or an animal.

Therefore any "Weapon" employed by a "person " to perform an "Assault" upon another Person i s 'called An "Assault Weapon" by the Anti' Gun Activists. Yet with their 'Term' an \Umbrella use by a 'Grandmother' to Defend Herself from an Attack by a 'Mugger' is an 'Assault Weapon".

Also I have Read that in the UK a Walker Was charged with Carrying, and Using, a Weapon to injure an Attacker, to whit: a Walking cane. So in the UK "Assault Weapon" would include Walking Canes of Handicapped persons.

Rebellious and Absurd Rulings by 'Anti-Weapon Activists' can Do Strange Things to the Law and its 'Definition.

Best Regards
Chev. William
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
354 Posts
Taught an informational firearm class some years ago to a bunch of local tv reporters including the local anchors. When presented with two Ruger 10/22's, one with a plain wood stock and factory magazine, and one in a Butler Creek folder with a 25 round hi cap magazine, they instantly pegged the black gun as an "assault weapon". They then went on to ask me what the definition of an assault weapon was!!
These people for the most part were not shooters and in fact did not know the difference between a revolver and a semi-auto pistol.
These are the people influencing the masses daily, reading whatever comes up on the telepromptor without question.
No wonder people are confused.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,478 Posts
Just after Fox News came on the air, they showed a picture of a Hammerlli Free pistol in a story about a drive-by shooting. I have a family connection to one of the head guys up there and became an unpaid (and totally un-used) gun expert so they maybe wouldn't further embarrass themselves. The year GWB secretly flew to Afganstan for T'Giving, I was with this FNC guy and found out they really don't CARE. Some junior gofer finds a picture for them to use and his/her bias will always show.

I gave up cigarettes and TV in the year 2000. I've never craved another TV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,850 Posts
As I've always said, I don't have a single problem with the term assault weapon. In the true meaning and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, why wouldn't they be called that? Better we rely on common sense decisions like the ones rendered by this Judge than let the left define terms. Better we say "assault weapon? So what? Of course they are!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,861 Posts
Of course it is an assault weapon. Typicaly airborne assault troops all over the world choose their assault rifles to best serve the task at hand.

We simply play right into the hands of the anti gun ones to make up some PC excuses and cute semantics when we all know that any AR / AK / Galil / FN FAL type with folding or adjustable stock originally came into being as assault rifles for assault troops, opposite to standard infantry weapons - even though we use out infantry soldiers also in an assault on the enemy, do we not? What is the problem to defend your home or community with your assault rifle?

What we should rather do with our energy is to educate and mentor owners of assault rifles to not brandish ANY weapon in a display of an aggressive challenge, but have them and train with them and use them for the reasons why it was aquired, and do so in a civil, mature and professional manner as befitting concerned and resolute citizens.

It is not the assault rifle that is behind the ant-assault rifle actions but in many instances the style and conduct by owners of assault rifles.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
15,478 Posts
By definition "Assault" is either a military exercise or a crime.
All my guns are ANTI-assault weapons or sporting arms.

The Constitution clearly states not only our Right by the Amendments but also how the entire government is formed, run and changed. Armed insurrection is not part of it.
My guns are DEFENSIVE and therefore not a threat except to the bad guys....whoever they might be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Shoot. Now days people are using these "assault rifles" for everything hunting to personal defense. I personaly now use my AR 15 rifles for everything. They make excellent hunting rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
Of course it is an assault weapon. Typicaly airborne assault troops all over the world choose their assault rifles to best serve the task at hand.

We simply play right into the hands of the anti gun ones to make up some PC excuses and cute semantics when we all know that any AR / AK / Galil / FN FAL type with folding or adjustable stock originally came into being as assault rifles for assault troops, opposite to standard infantry weapons - be we use out infantry soldiers also in an assault on the enemy, do we not? What is the problem to defend your home or community with your assault rifle?

What we should rather do with our energy is to educate and mentor owners of assault rifles to not brandish ANY weapon in a display of a aggressive challenge, but have them and train with them and use them for the reasons why it was aquired, and do so in a civil, mature and professional manner as befitting concerned and resolute citizens.

It is not the assault rifle that is behind the ant-assault rifle actions but in many instances the style and conduct by owners of assault rifles.
I understand what you're saying. All the idiots a few years going for their right to open carry were carrying ar15's into family resturaunts with the firearms at low ready position to pose for their pictures. I'm all for the right to open carry, but it needs to be. Simple duty size handgun firmly placed on your hip just like a police officer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,861 Posts
Trent, exactly one example of the many I had in mind. I am a firm believer in the principle that a concealed handgun is wiser - and I shall always propagate that.

However, as long as that is not the constititionally allowed way (in fact it exactly IS also the constitutionally allowed way had the law any valued view of the 2nd Amendment), a mature open carry of a defense handgun as a way of life in a holster from where it can not be easily grabbed from behind is a civil way to quietly exercise our rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shreck

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
It has always been my interpretation on the 2nd Amendment that the citizen should own and be encouraged to familiarize and practice with the Military's current combat/battle rifle. Be it classified as an assault, semi or full auto; or what ever new technology comes down the pike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,861 Posts
In fact - when taken the whole nine yards that interpretation (and I am not saying it is incorrect) means that ALL military arms on the Pentagon's inventory should be available to the citizenry should they wish to organise themselves into a militia.

THAT failure to organise themselves into that allowed militia units is one of the reasons why the other allowance of the Second Amendment is being ignored by states, cities, sherrifs, etc. The collective US citizen therefore has never been a force and never will be as it is too late now to become that force. The precedent does not exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
In fact - when taken the whole nine yards that interpretation (and I am not saying it is incorrect) means that ALL military arms on the Pentagon's inventory should be available to the citizenry should they wish to organise themselves into a militia.

THAT failure to organise themselves into that allowed militia units is one of the reasons why the other allowance of the Second Amendment is being ignored by states, cities, sherrifs, etc. The collective US citizen therefore has never been a force and never will be as it is too late now to become that force. The precedent does not exist.
I think your right in the context of homeland defense, after the Revolutionary War of course, but I believe men and women raised in the art of gun handling are more trainable, confident and therefor ready to serve their country in the time of war. This is how I view the wording of the second amendment as referring to a militia.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
So the squat-to-pee liberals lost in an Appeals Court. That means they will push it up to an even higher Court. Liberals never surrender in their quest to destroy Freedom. Makes me wonder what they will destroy after they have destroyed everything wonderful about this country. What? Institute re-education camps or begin filling mass graves with those who will not come to believe in the Party line? Can you say Cambodia? Can you say Khmer Rouge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Webley

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,916 Posts
I think you're right in the context of homeland defense, after the Revolutionary War, of course. But I believe men and women raised in the art of gun-handling are more trainable, confident and therefore ready to serve their country in the time of war. This is how I view the wording of the Second Amendment as referring to a militia.
The Right of States to raise militias comes from the idea that the Framers were suspicious of a standing army. They feared a powerful army, funded by government, to be standing in the new nation when so much of how Liberty was to function had yet to be written. They wanted the People to be ready to defend their homeland because they estimated the People to be far less susceptible to corruption than would be a standing military.

In autocratic nations, the military eats well. Look at North Korea. In nations where Liberty is foremost, the soldiers live close to the bone. Look at our own military. Soldiers' wives have to sometimes go to food banks to get enough food for the kids. We expect our soldiers to do much, yet we barely pay them. Instead, that money goes to illegal aliens-- who are well-documented to vote Marxocrat.

The Second Amendment frees States to raise militias in defense of their sovereignty. The arms for these militias are to be provided by the People, and should be equal to the arms of the government such that the People can face the government on equal terms. Yes; we really should be able to possess an M-60 machine gun-- with no restrictions. The other side is that anyone who uses a firearm for illegal purposes gets every letter of the law applied to him for his crime.

Freedom is not a one-way street. There are consequences to illegal behavior. At least there were until about thirty years ago. Now, mass murderers get reduced sentences because they had a difficult childhood while a woman who has a handgun permit in Pennsylvania but not in New Jersey faced a lengthy jail term. She injured or diminished no one, yet faced a long time in prison for bringing a gun into a State that has bowed to criminals because that State refuses to swing the Hammer of Justice against them. The criminals have won in New Jersey. The People in that State have lost...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Webley

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
37,020 Posts
Guys, keep it on the gun topics please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,765 Posts
It has always been my interpretation on the 2nd Amendment that the citizen should own and be encouraged to familiarize and practice with the Military's current combat/battle rifle. Be it classified as an assault, semi or full auto; or what ever new technology comes down the pike.
That's my opinion on the matter as well. Honestly if my rifles had the giggle switch, I would probably not use it a whole lot. Ammo is too expensive to practice with in semi auto a lot of the time. In fully automatic fire I'm sure it would be even more expensive. It would be nice to have the ability to switch my safety back one more click and have the ability though. Just incase one would ever need it.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top