Author Topic: Picture of Assault Weapon before and after the ban? (Read 1931 times)

Raptor · « **on:** October 13, 2004, 09:32:37 PM »

Can someone post a picture of an 'assault rifle' before and after the assault rifle ban? I dont think there would be a significant difference...

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2004, 09:43:03 PM »

There wont be.

The dif will be funky thumb hole stocks. No flash supressors or bayonet lugs. That's it.

Cause the bad guys were killing each other in the streets with boyonets all the time!

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2004, 09:48:02 PM »

pre ban

post ban

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:00:11 PM »

It might... isnt its ammunition rare these days?

medicboy · « **Reply #4 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:15:20 PM »

I bet not having those bayonett lugs and flash supressors saved lots of lives and made the world a better place......

Oh, ammo isn't rare, I assume you mean because of the war??? The military gets its ammo from an independant contractor called lake city ammo, the big guys are still pumping out lots of the usual stuff.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #5 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:21:00 PM »

Hmm - someone posted a pic of a pssh41 - an old Soviet SMG... IIRC it fired some exotic round in the 5mm range.

He asked if it fell under some sort of special designation, hense my post.

He seems to have removed his post, however.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #6 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:33:15 PM »

I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."

You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.

1K3 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:40:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Hmm - someone posted a pic of a pssh41 - an old Soviet SMG... IIRC it fired some exotic round in the 5mm range.

He asked if it fell under some sort of special designation, hense my post.

He seems to have removed his post, however.

i think i found it

71 rounds.... Thats crazy! Should be banned too!

mauser · « **Reply #8 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:52:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."

You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.

What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?

mauser

TweetyBird · « **Reply #9 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:58:20 PM »

>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<

Would you accept that reason from any country developing nuclear weapons? "We just admire the mechanism!"

Well our country percieves a threat when neighboring countries start building powerful weapons. *I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.

Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** October 13, 2004, 10:59:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
I'm glad our goverment doesn't follow the same logic that "guns don't kill , people do" when it comes to nuclear weapons. Can you imagine - "nukes don't kill, tyrants do."

You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people.

well the second amendment doesn't mention anything at all about a person's right to bare arms in order to hunt animals.

TweetyBird · « **Reply #11 on:** October 13, 2004, 11:04:31 PM »

The second amendment was written to insure a malitia, not to insure everyone could own a gun - in fact it doesn't mention a gun. What if we decide guns aren't strong enough? Can we bare tanks?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 13, 2004, 11:09:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird

You have an assualt weapon for 3 reasons - law enforcement, to kill people or pretend you kill people. [/B]

Or just maybe for protection.

Martlet · « **Reply #13 on:** October 13, 2004, 11:27:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<

Would you accept that reason from any country developing nuclear weapons? "We just admire the mechanism!"

Well our country percieves a threat when neighboring countries start building powerful weapons. *I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.

Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.

"nuking" isn't a sport.
you don't go to the gravel pit and nuke targets for fun.

Comparing nukes to guns is laughable.

Realizing you're serious is insanity.

Russian · « **Reply #14 on:** October 13, 2004, 11:44:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by TweetyBird
>>What about "just for fun?" Or you just admire the system - like admiring mechanical wrist watches?
<<

*I* percieve a threat when my neighbor starts stockpiling assault weapons.

Logic is consistant - thats why few people use it.

So I can’t have fun target shooting? Due to liberal logic like yours Social Republic of Kalifornia outlawed just about everything. Golly-geen liberals....