Sandman9000 Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Since everyone else is allowed to get skewl help in here, I might as well ask as well. American Government class I'm in is "making" an amendment to ban assault weapons, except that no one can really define what an assault rifle is. We have the idea that military and law enforcement guns should be banned, but what I'm looking for is exactly what the difference is between a military firearm and a civilian firearm. In addition, the class wants to limit civilians to only owning single-shot firearms, something that I'm opposed to (I'm a representative of Maine, where we hunt moose, and need more then one shot to down those motherfuckers.) So, if anyone could help, or gimme a link that has the definitions (goddamn source showing, I'll show you...), me will give you a cookie or a gold star, your choice.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Screw that. I'm not helping out a bunch of anti-gun hippies. Raise hell with what you disagree with...
Sandman9000 Posted November 17, 2003 Author Report Posted November 17, 2003 No KKK, help me show them the light. I'm gonna have to concede some shit (fully automatic guns are a no-no, so the renewal of the 1934 ban which expires next year is a given), but help me convince them that banning all guns is an asshole move, and limiting people to just single-shot guns is also a dumbass move.
MrRant Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 (edited) Inform them of the need for multiple shot rifles when you are picking off dirty hippies from stealing corn from your field because their lazy asses can't get a job. Edited November 17, 2003 by MrRant
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Compare crime rates in rural areas where everyone's armed to the teeth, and suburban areas, or other places with fewer gun owners. It's a deterrent for a criminal if they're pretty sure there's going to be a vigilant (or sleepy and frightened) person in there with a .12 gauge. As for "Single shot" weapons, what exactly are they talking about? Guns that only fire one shot at a time, or guns that only hold one round? If so, then you're putting everyone back to muzzleloaders. Even an incredibly common gun like a .38 special holds six. As for "assault rifle," someone in the military would be more qualified to answer this than me, but I'd bet it's any fully-automatic weapon, that can fire X distance away. If you're after examples, the AR-15 is just basically a civillian knockoff of the fabled M-16, I think. Personally, I don't think anyone really needs a machine gun, per se, but people have all kinds of shit they don't need. Besides, a 9mm will kill you just as dead as an SKS, so where's the REAL distinction? I'm also not one in favor of making laws that restrict our constitution, either. Besides, suppose this law passes, are the cops going to come and get guns from adamant gunowners? Fuck that job, buddy..hoo boy. Waco, nationwide.
Guest Salacious Crumb Posted November 17, 2003 Report Posted November 17, 2003 Bring out the stat for how many registered guns are used to kill people. Show that criminals are going to get guns regardless and banning all guns is just hurting the law abiding.
Guest fk teale Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 A google search for "assault rifle" & definition should give you plenty to go on. The biggest (only?) difference between military and civilian models of a given rifle seems to be that the civilian version is semi-automatic only, whereas the military model is fully automatic or has selectable fire rates. As noted, the 1934 ban pretty much wraps up this issue to the satisfaction of most. As for "assault weapons," well, uh. Perhaps the best stance to take is not so much trying to convince folks that banning a particular type of gun is a bad move, but that advocating any gun-control policy when you don't know a blessed thing about firearms which are icky and loud and scary (unlike ponies (especially pretty ones)) tends to reflect poorly upon you.
Guest JacK Posted November 20, 2003 Report Posted November 20, 2003 Hmmm, you should add spoons to that amendment as well. Their my prediction to be Australia's number one cause of murder, after they band like all guns, you can't carry knives, no crossbows, stuff like that. Spoons are next, I guarentee it. Just wait til some spoon-wielding maniac goes crazy and kills a few people . . . don't act like it's not going to happen.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now