How many times have I said that it doesn't matter what guns the military or police use? Nobody has a problem with that. Why do you keep mentioning military
weapons?
Because you keep saying that only certain guns should be limited to the military and police.
The only thing we need to focus on is banning semi-automatic rifles, pistols or shotguns with 10 round or more magazine capacities. 5 round limit for shotguns. Quit bringing the military into this. Obviously people have had these type semi-automatic weapons for years! Now is the time to get them banned.
And again, how many times must I ask why these standards? What are they based on? Why ban semi-automatics with ten round or greater magazine capacity and why limit shotguns to five rounds?
Is this another one of your facts? Why do you keep bringing up the military? Besides you said that military weapons have full auto capability civilian guns don't.
That's one difference. The other is the military weapons are owned by the US Govt. and the taxpayers.
In fact, why don't you cite me an example of a civilian weapon that is the main infantry combat rifle of the US Marines or Army...'Cause you just said the guns used by the military and civilians are the same. So please, cite me one civilian gun that is the main battle rifle of the US Infantry or Marines.
I pointed out the difference in terms of automatic fire capability, yes, but a few things:
1) The automatic fire guns have a semi-automatic capability as well which is mostly what soldiers use, so there is not all that much difference from the strictly semi-automatics available to civilians.
2) By "the same" I mean functionally. A semi-automatic rifle made for the civilian market is not going to be any less able to kill than one made for the military. Making it for the military has to do with the build-quality. Many AR-15s, for example, are not technically built to military specifications (good-quality versions are).
3) A strictly civilian-market rifle was the Ruger Mini-14, another semi-automatic .223 rifle. However, some militaries around the world have also adopted it for usage.
A Browning BAR, Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, etc...all are equally able to kill.
Wrong, it isn't from my personal whim, and would you actually say it is from random choice? Would you?
No, it is from a first hand knowledge of these weapons, familiarity with types, mechanics, capabilities and performance which leads me, and many, many others to somehow come to the same RANDOM, WHIMSICAL CHOICE. No that was sarcasm! That's the definition of an informed, reasoned process.
That still is not an answer.
That's not a fact. There's very little substance in that statement actually to be scrutinized for fact or falsity.
This is completely untrue and something that is very easy to check.
As I have seen many different definitions over the years, you expect me to take your "expert" arbitrary definition? Again this definitely isn't a fact.
If you had read my description, you would see that I do not give any definition of the term "assault weapon." I explain it as being a made-up term that describes a completely fictional type of weapon that doesn't exist. Anything can be defined as an assault weapon by politicians and gun control people.
Who's the officiating standard for this? The military doesn't use the term assault rifle. What makes it an "official term"? Plus see the one right above.
Yes they do. Assault rifle is an actual term. And I provided a source for it: U.S. Defense Department Defense Intelligence Agency Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide. That defines "assault rifles" as, "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and rifle cartridges.
This isn't a fact. You would have to provide very specific information here. Types of bullets compared. Composition of walls. Ranges. Calibers of guns.
I did provide the caliber. I said .223. And I explained the type of bullet: fragmenting, which is what most .223s do. I also described the composition of the walls: the average walls in a home are two layers of wallboard spaced a few inches apart.
When it all came out in the wash, it wouldn't matter for two reasons:
1. The .223 FNJ penetrates walls, bulletproof vests, car doors, masonry, and bulletproof vests with ease. So if you can show data the a pistol round does it better-so what? Plus you haven't shown that data...so again, no facts here. But even more important, it's way outside the orbit of our debate. It's irrelevant to my position. Human beings aren't walls! The .223 has shown an excellent capability for all around combat style killing. The Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, law Enforcement as well as a few countries around the world as well as terrorists and insurgents in Iraq to Afghanistan to Vietnam have used the for nearly 50 years. Something must be effective about it.
Are you aware, BTW, that any decent hunting arrow (of the archery type) will penetrate a standard Kevlar vest (what the police wear)?
Pretty much any gun will penetrate single-layer walls and car doors. "Bulletproof" vests, it really depends on the vest. And yes, humans aren't walls.
But if you are using the gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, you want a gun where if you miss while shooting, it is less able to penetrate. And the Vietnamese did not use the .223. Nor do terrorists and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the .223 is very effective at killing and has good stopping power, which is very important.
.223 is a very tiny projectile. What lets it wound is that it fragments on impact. However, this feature also infringes on its ability to penetrate the walls of a home due to how they are built. Regarding a source, the FBI's Firearms Training Unit conducted extensive testing on this back in the 1990s. There have also been some other tests conducted since then. Here is a detailed article on the subject: http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26
Note the following:
As a result of renewed law enforcement interest in the .223 round and in the newer weapons systems developed around it, the FBI recently subjected several various .223 caliber projectiles to 13 different ballistic tests and compared their performance to that of SMG-fired hollow point pistol bullets in 9mm, 10mm, and .40 S&W calibers.
Bottom Line: In every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets.
But don't get me wrong all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns should be banned too if their magazine capacity is over 10 rounds.(5 rounds for shotguns) Even if they shoot .308, 9mm, .40S&W, 12 gauge, 16 gauge, .44mag, .50 cal etc...all of them!
If it is semi-automatic and holds over 10 rounds, then ban 'em! Pistols, rifles and shotguns!! Of course 5 round limit for shotguns!
By the way, I'm sure you can find a few facts back there that you have stated...feel free to cite the. Just make sure they are relevant to our discussion. Thanks.
You again just arbitrarily say what should be banned.
Yes, now we are getting into the rich stuff...please continue. Was this taken from your own manifesto, or did you borrow some of this from Jefferson or Locke?
There are books that have been written on how to go about conducting peaceful civil resistance. However, there is a reason why most revolutions fail and descend into tyranny.
Yes. You are a person with...deficits...
If one could find the greatest antithesis of tyranny(or potential tyranny)...if someone could define the exact opposite of tyranny, it would be a nation that allows it's citizens to keep weapons and walk around with the moronic ideas you have!!
You do have serious deficits...
And what exactly makes it moronic? You think a country in which all of the citizens are armed is easy for an authoritarian government to maintain control over? Because such people can do things like toss the regional government out of power, disrupt supply lines, sabotage, and generally a variety of things. There are only so many soldiers and weapons one can commit to putting down such activities. That is why no dictatorship in its right mind allows its people to be armed.
You really jumped the shark with this shit! You should have just stuck with defending gun rights for the sake of the Second Amendment! I conceded that to you!
How to go about standing up to an authoritarian regime is a serious question for many freedom-seeking peoples throughout the world. One of the main things Lech Walesa and the Solidarity Movement in Poland had to be careful of, for example, was to make sure not to give the Soviets a reason to send the Soviet army into Poland against them. This involved peaceful resistance. It would have been a huge public relations blow to the Soviet government if they were to send in the military to crush that resistance without a reason.