What they may want,. and what their laws do are -obviously- a different story.  Both of those rifles I posted are banned by the same assault weapons law we were discussing, despite neither being an assault rifle...and being unactionable.

The gun lobby didn't write that law, Brian, and it does nothing..it wouldn't do anything even it it did what it said it did, or refered to what it claimed to be controlling...which it doesn't, in either case.

The gun control lobby needs to take responsibility and stop blaming the NRA for their own ignorance and incompetence. So do you, if you wish to style yourself as an advocate. If they find themselves with public support, or a mandate, they can't keep pissing it away with shit like that. Now, I'm a cynic, I don't think the gun control lobby is actually interested in solving our gun problem. The assumption that they are is generous, and not at all in keeping with the nature of their legislation...but I'm willing to be wrong, practically -wishing- that they would show me to be wrong, by writing competent legislation, and sticking up for it in the face of babbling idiots.

(June 28, 2016 at 7:40 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote:

(June 28, 2016 at 5:51 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Another TFB for non-comprehension then.

You are so very smart.  May we please be like you?

You might want to resume your previous course and sail on down the river.

Meme time.

Gawd, you may be a pompous ass, but I admit you are funny.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:19 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: Gawd, you may be a pompous ass, but I admit you are funny.

See, there's your mistake, I'm not a pompous ass, because that would require expenditure of energy that I choose not to waste. What I am is a retired CPO.

Ah, and I had you pegged for a Captain (Navy type, not Army).

(June 28, 2016 at 9:02 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: Ah, and I had you pegged for a Captain (Navy type, not Army).

Not eligible. My parents were married. 

Very good, very good.

---

As for the "sturm" debate, the type of weapon you make reference to there is full-auto capable, a feature not legal in the U.S. without a federal license. Since full-auto isn't an option for the law abiding citizen without an FFL, what remains is just what Rhythm described... two rifles functioning the same with different appearance.

The idea I'm getting from your "sturm" argument is that these weapons are meant for war, and you maybe believe that's where they should stay?

Yes, the original M-16 design was for military contract (again, full-auto functionality). Yes, the U.S. Military largely now uses the M-4 Carbine (this one having a Burst option, also requiring an FFL in civi-life). The AR-15 or any variant is neither of those weapons. The AR-15 is semi-auto, just as many "non-assault" weapons, just looking like the real deal.

I hope the difference here is clear, and that I have shown the argument here boils down to aesthetics. Aesthetics don't mean shit. Function, reliability, accuracy, and simplicity are king. If you look at our top-tier shooters, our CQB experts who do their thing everyday, they don't go with M-4 Carbines in many cases. There are way better battlefield weapons, depending on the mission, many not having the "cool" or "scary" appearance of the M-4/AR-15 (not referring to the dumb-shit skull thing). They don't care if it looks really murderous, they care if it gets the job done.

1. Appearance of a weapon does not influence its' lethality.

2. Banning weapons based on appearance does not affect the functionality of weapons available.

3. Banning weapons based on appearance does set a precedence of doing stupid shit.

4. Doing stupid shit could lead to complete prohibition (as Hillary would have it), benefiting the bad guy.

5. Bad guys and cops have the guns. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

IIRC it took a 1/16th inch drill bit to turn an AR-15 into a full rock-and-roll M-16. Never tried it myself.

And, of course, when seconds count you don't want to be looking for a gun. I used to teach violence when I was active duty, and never needed a gun for any of my classes.

(June 28, 2016 at 8:15 pm)KUSA Wrote: Meme time.

Unsourced memes don't count.

Secondly Switzerland has a far better economy and nowhere near the poverty rate or pay gap. And I doubt they simply hand them out with out vetting people. I am quite sure they don't hand them out to the mentally ill or spouse abusers. I am quite sure they do a far better job of making sure the person who has one has a reason for it and not simply "I want one" and "I have no record".