Remember the "this is your brain on drugs" commercials?

This IS an assault weapon

This one IS NOT

Any Questions?

Looks like that ban did the trick.

they both look the same. the only difference is the top photo includes two cartrages with it


peace
david
:hippie:

MAGAZINE!

The 2 magazines can be used on either weapon, the bottom one just doesnt have a picture of them.

I would rather be shot by a criminal using a "sporting" rifle. I mean, if a criminal were to shoot me with a nasty looking gun I would feel much worse! Somehow the bullet "feels" better if it comes from a "sporting" rifle. I know, call me crazy but thats the way I feel.

far more bullets in a far shorter time than most handguns, sporting rifles, or shotguns. That's why they are potentially so much more dangerous than the other weapons. I guess that's why we can chain up our dogs in our back yards, but we can't keep tigers and lions.

It doesn't matter how many fucking rounds you fired you fucking shitbird, how many fucking times did you hit the fucking target? He really encouraged accuracy over volume. He learned a thing or two over the years I guess.

Those weapons are capable of firing far more bullets in a far shorter time than most handguns, sporting rifles, or shotguns."

The first one, which is capable of automatic fire (i.e, pull trigger once = more than one round is fired?) Yes (Incidentally, these types of firearms have been severely regulated by ATF since 1934)

Or the second one (pull trigger once = only one round fired; must pull again to fire next round?)
No (which is what the so-called "assault weapons" do/are)


As a suggestion, I think you need to do some more research into this issue . . .

One of them just has a collapsable stock and a bayo lug.

They are both still legal to buy, the top one will just cost you about $1000 more. Thanks for agreeing that the "assault weapons" ban is and was and always will be...a big fat ass f*^king joke. :-)

How can that be an assault weapon?
They are soooooo dangerous that they were banned!
What's that? Models that were lawfully possessed before September 14, 1994 were grandfathered? But I heard that they are too dangerous for civilians to own and were banned.

Seriously, if the exact rifle in your first image was manufactured today by a licensed gun manufacturer and;
they cut off the bayo lug,
replaced the flash hider with a permanent compensator or muzzle brake,
replaced the telescoping stock with a non-telescoping, nonfolding one,
and made sure that the name 'AR15' was not printed on the side of the receiver,

IT WOULD NOT BE AN ASSAULT WEAPON!

That Civilian weapon design tend to follow Military weapon design. The Bolt action took over from the Single shot and Lever Action after WWI, because people learn to like Bolt Actions in the Army during WWI. In WWII bolt actions were still used in addition to the Semi-automatic M1 Rifle, so bolt actions stayed the preferred action till the 1980s when variations of both the M16 and AK systems came into play.

When the AW ban was being debated by Congress, you had people saying the ACTIONS were not the problem, and if you started to ban action designs all types of weapons would be banned in addition to what Congress wanted to ban. For example the Winchester 1200 and 1300 shotguns are based on design of a rotating bolt which is also used in both the M16 and AK series. Thus a ban on AK or M-16s or similar actions would also ban Winchester 1200 and 1300 series shotguns (and the 1300 was a pump action NOT a semi-automatic shotgun, it just uses a rotating bolt head as does the M16 and AK series of Weapons).

The only other way to different between "Miliary" and "Civilian" weapons is to adopt a law like the one in Mexico that banned the ownership of a weapon in any caliber used by the Military. In Mexico that outlaws the use of 7mm Mauser, 30'06, 308 Winchester (7.62 NATO) and even .223 Remington (5.56 NATO). The problem is these same calibers are the most popular caliber for hunting in the United States and Congress did not want to ban any of them (through there was some movement to ban the 7.62x39mm Russian Round but that went no were for some people had started to use it is bolt action Rifles for it was a nice light round for eastern deer).

Thus if you decided "Civilian" semi-automatics would still be "legal" but "Miliary" semi-automatics would be illegal, BUT the underlying action AND caliber of the weapon would NOT be the basis for the difference between Military and Civilian, than you are left with cosmetics difference, i.e. does it have a bayonet lung (which can be added after market) etc.

The whole concept that you can treat certain weapons as "Civilian" and
different weapons as "Military" was just unworkable unless you banned either the Action used in such military weapons OR the caliber of ammunition used in such weapons. Congress did neither and we needed up with this feel-good legislation that had no effect on crime or deaths since it was passed.

Ban em both. Easy

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but when you say "ban them both" your argument has more merit than when you say "renew the assault weapons ban".

Atleast youre trying to ban something other than cosmetics. I doubt the ban will be rewritten stonger since the GOP would like to hold their possitions in congress, but you atleast know what you wanna ban.

The rifle pictured on top is more evil than the one below because it has a flash supressor and a bayonet lug.

It works exactly the same way and at the same rate of fire as the semi auto Model 60 I bought at Wally World a few years back for $89.00. One trigger pull, one bullet.

As a matter of fact it fires pretty much the same sized bullet, .22 versus .223, but with a lot less powder behind it of course. My 60 is the older model that holds 18 rounds in the tube magazine.

Does making the rifle black and having an evil looking stock make it somehow more dangerous than the walnut stock on my Marlin? I guess it does to some folks. Funny how some people are so quick to make a judgement on appearances ain't it.

Maybe we need to ban vehicles that look like military ones, Jeeps etc.

Don P.