re: 70% of Young Americans think we should be allowed to own Assualt Rifles

quote:

---

This is the point you keep missing - MOST semis work this way.

---

And?

quote:

---

Come on man. I know you're ignorant on the whole weapons issue, but that's the biggest crock of $hit I've ever seen. They picked that because it was common to the "ugly" guns. Not because of the functionality of a pistol grip versus thumbhole, versus straight or angle stock.

---

I cannot read the thoughts of other people like you can - so I won't argue their reasoning with you. When did you first realize you were clairvoyant? Just curious.

Your assertion that a pistol grip serves no function is again - utterly ridiculous and flies in the face of the definitions of words.

quote:

---

Again - what's more dangerous the, essentially, cosmetic fitting for a bayonet/grenade launcher or the actual bayonet (meaning a "knife") or the grenade launcher and f*cking GRENADES which are separately regulated as destructive devices?

---

A "cosmetic fitting" ? Now I've heard it all. That's an oxymoron dude. The FUNCTION of the bayonet fitting is to allow the user to attach a bayonet. It isn't there just for show. That should be obvious to anyone who knows the meaning of words and is alive.

quote:

---

Regardless of the items actual functionality - the features they sought to ban were done so on that feature's contribution to the menacing appearance of the rifle. In other words COSMETICS.

---

Again - I'm curious as to how you have this insight into the thoughts of other people. Do you just divine it from above - or is there an NRA blog you cut and paste them from?

quote:

---

More importantly, which one is an "assault weapon"?

---

The Ranch Rifle would appear to not have at least two of the features in the list as defined in the 94 ban. If I'm wrong please point them out. Obviously I can't see inside the barrel but you can read minds so you ought to be able to see inside a gun barrel with just a photo.


If you're referring to recent attempts to reincarnate that law on the federal level or state bans - I dunno about those.






BTW - I am only arguing against your blatantly incorrect claim that these features serve no function. That is just stupid.

If you would argue that the Ranch Rifle poses as much of a threat to civilian safety as the AR-15 - that would actually be reasonable. I agree with you - the ban should be simpler and have fewer exceptions.

Any semi-automatic that has a greater than 10 round magazine should be banned - with a possible exception for shooting clubs or organized civilian militia who agree to use them only on sight of the club or militia training grounds and abide by certain security protocols to prevent their theft. The President or state governor would have the authority to release such a militia of the obligation to store the guns on sight in the case of invasion. Then you guys can go shoot off your big guns for fun and you'll have them around for when the British come back.