- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why do civilians own "assault weapons"?
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:48 pm to Tino
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:48 pm to Tino
quote:
there are very few civilians who own automatic weapons
this is very true and they are difficult and expensive to obtain.
I don't own one or want one for that matter.
They chew through ammo too fast.
This post was edited on 7/21/12 at 3:58 pm
0
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:50 pm to jtiger123
quote:
P.S. many handguns used for self defense are "automatic"
Uh, no.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:52 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
I see y'all have had a nice little discussion in my absence. 
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:53 pm to BarDTiger81
Anchors away.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:57 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
What you fail to understand is that to the firearm enthusiast the OP is the ignorant arse.
Not really, I think the OP's question was completely legit.
You ignorant/defensive motherfrickers just trolled yourselves.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 3:58 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
It's a safety issue for me, guns are very loud and over time could cause hearing damage. Yes, I use earplugs and even the battery powered hearing muffs but it's annoying when I could have a device that would make the headgear unnecessary.
While I agree I may be able to answer that.
I have a friend that is a SWAT team leader and he told me they use suppressors to differentiate between team members fire and that of perps.
I don't know if that's really a good answer, but it is interesting
This post was edited on 7/21/12 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 7/21/12 at 4:03 pm to Raz4back
quote:
I don't know if that's really a good answer
It's not.
So many different types of guns and suppressors out there, the possibility of of a SWAT team member's rifle matching the sound of a perp's firearm is miniscule at best, even with similar suppressors.
quote:
but it is interesting
yep.
This post was edited on 7/21/12 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 7/21/12 at 4:22 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
Sound suppressors eh? I'm sure you were being funny but they have earplugs and muffs for that. But I agree we should be allowed silencers. What business of the government is that? And while I don't the automatic weapons are necessary and are not effective in a militia situation, why can't we have them? Where is this invisible line? I want a fricking flame thrower. In a short blast it painfully kills attackers with minimal property damage. The government gets 40% of money to pay for the others. I pay that price for the liberties afforded by our Constitution. They can eat a dick with the particulars.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 4:38 pm to pooponsaban
quote:
I'm sure you were being funny but they have earplugs and muffs for that.
Did you even read my post
Additionally, the earplugs and muffs can only help so much. Suppressors can reduce the decibel level far below the protection level earplugs offer.
quote:
What business of the government is that?
I don't have a problem with them knowing I have a suppressor. They already know I have guns.
quote:
And while I don't the automatic weapons are necessary and are not effective in a militia situation, why can't we have them?
Huh?
You can have them.
quote:
Where is this invisible line?
Well, I don't think civilians should be allowed to have militarized tanks or jets for obvious reasons.
quote:
I want a fricking flame thrower. In a short blast it painfully kills attackers with minimal property damage.
trolling I hope, I don't know the law on flame throwers but they are extremely dangerous to the operator.
quote:
The government gets 40% of money to pay for the others. I pay that price for the liberties afforded by our Constitution. They can eat a dick with the particulars.
okay
Posted on 7/21/12 at 4:40 pm to pooponsaban
ok I'm wondering if my hot .45 acp reloads would have gone through his armor?
Posted on 7/21/12 at 4:49 pm to SilverSpurs13
"Assault weapons" are defined by the military not common law definition. DOD--Assault is the climax of an attack, closing with the enemy in hand to hand fighting.COMMON LAW--Assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an immense harmful or offensive act. In common law, assault can encompass any imaginable weapon, pencil, fist, etc. In the military, it is a part of a battle scenario. Little bit different, don't you think? So, I guess your question has merit, in the civilian world.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 5:02 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
Not really, I think the OP's question was completely legit.
You ignorant/defensive motherfrickers just trolled yourselves.
Posted on 7/21/12 at 5:04 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
Uh yes. Since he kept using automatic to refer to semi automatic, then my statement is correct. Ever heard of Glock?
Posted on 7/21/12 at 5:11 pm to jtiger123
Oh boy...
Posted on 7/21/12 at 5:43 pm to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
For some, myself included, guns are fun to shoot, collect, clean, and take care of.
For me, it's a form of recreation and entertainment.
You could call it a hobby.
I'm not so much into killing animals unless they are a hazard (poisonous snakes, nutria rat, coyotes).
I don't even feel like I need a gun to defend myself but I can understand why others would.
The AR-15s, AK-47s, and other assault rifles are convenient for a sporting shooter such as myself.
When I go shooting, I usually shoot a lot so the high capacity magazines, affordable ammunition, and the semi automatic feature of the rifle is beneficial.
Moreover, assault rifles are not nearly as deadly as most standard hunting rifles that are designed to kill large animals.
Whereas a semi automatic assault rifle is designed to wound a man.
See the video below.
The Truth About AK-47 Firepower
Here is my analogy:
A top of the line baseball bat is to baseball what a top of the line AR-15 is to the sporting shooter.
Yes, the baseball bat is lethal weapon, but in only the rarest of cases (self defense) would I ever consider using it that way.
I know this is anchored but you made a very good post
Posted on 7/21/12 at 5:49 pm to TigersRuleTheEarth
quote:
I won't be paying a second visit here
Is this supposed to make people sad ??
Posted on 7/21/12 at 6:30 pm to Nodust
quote:
I know this is anchored but you made a very good post
Thanks man, I'm kinda surprised they anchored it.
This post was edited on 7/21/12 at 6:30 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News