Why NOT to vote Republican

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

Do you think assault weapons are reasonable guns for the general public to have?

---

Short answer: "Yes"

Long answer: What do you mean by "assault weapon"? As you likely know, since we've discussed it on this forum or its predecessor for ~25 years now, there has been a slow, relentless campaign to redefine the language used to classify semi-automatic firearms as "assault weapons". (I can't even turn on the news these days without hearing "weapons of war", "assault weapons", and so on nattered on about by people who either are ignorant, or acting with bad intent.). Yet this sort of firearm has been available to the public for > 100 years. The AR-15 itself has been available to the civilian market since the year I was born, and I'm nearly 60 years old. And as I have mentioned just above, the recent Washington State "assault weapons" ban includes firearms that have been in my family since the 1800s.

Short question: Do you think *any* firearms are reasonable for the general public to have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

I assume those older family items could be grandfathered in (arghh).

---

They are "grandfathered in" in my state's new regulations. That term, as defined in the law:

- Basically prohibits me from selling them to anyone, so the economic value of the item is impacted. Some of the individual firearms I own that fall into the "grandfathered" class are worth in excess of $30k.

- Prohibits me from purchasing repair parts. Firearms require maintenance and upkeep, even if unused.

- Prohibits me from making my own repair parts. I have a fully-equipped machine shop, and can make almost anything I require from scratch. As-written, if I were to make a simple screw or spring to repair or restore one of my firearms, I'd be breaking the law.

- Prohibits me from allowing my students to use one of my firearms at the range under supervision for instructional purposes. Prohibits me from allowing my own child or spouse to use the firearm for instructional purposes, or any other purpose.

- Etc. etc. etc.

Okay---assault rifle were ideal in Vietnam. See---you had trails through dense vegetation, that obscured the enemy. So yeah---you'd be out on patrol, and get ambushed, and had only a vague idea where the bullets were coming from! Ow. But yeah---an "assault rifle" allowed you to rapidly fire multiple rounds in the general directions of the enemy, without actually seeing them, and have a better chance of incapacitating them. Just by pulling the trigger. Thing is---a bolt action, where you have to manually chamber each successive round---well, that puts you at a disadvantage. And yeah--your adversary doesn't mind that, at all. And that's the moral of the story. Sure is. See---some people---idealistic ones---like to jump on the bandwagon of a solution that they perceive is morally superior. They also tend to be easily led by claims of moral superiority, too. So, anyway: Here's a Moral for you: Better Dead Than Red. See? Figure it out. Hope that helps you some. Thankk mee.

Okay----Post Script. If I were a thug, looking to break into a home to score a big-screen so's I could see da foo-baw game nex' Satterday, I'd choose a home where I didn't hafta face an irate homeowner and hiz AK-47. Yup. Or Nope. But yeah---does that make sense? Thankk mee. Bonus photo: Charlie Cong(leftist guerilla) and his SKS, and US serviceman, holding one he seized. YupAttachment 5391

Is this the "compassionate conservatism" that Bush had in mind when he first spoke that oxymoron?

https://www.alternet.org/oklahoma-wo...-lot-abortion/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

They are "grandfathered in" in my state's new regulations. That term, as defined in the law....Etc. etc. etc.

---

The next time the far right tries to over throw the government the democratic states could be left defenseless. Firearms have always been a part of my lifestyle for competition shooting when I was young and hunting weapons later on. The firearms culture these days is much different and beyond my comprehension, but the focus on assault weapons seems a little misdirected and more of a political theater than any practical solution to the socio/economic issues and romanticism of violence in the media and gaming.

There will probably be a good market and servicing options for those old weapons in Texas for the time being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Short answer: "Yes"

Long answer: What do you mean by "assault weapon"? As you likely know, since we've discussed it on this forum or its predecessor for ~25 years now, there has been a slow, relentless campaign to redefine the language used to classify semi-automatic firearms as "assault weapons". (I can't even turn on the news these days without hearing "weapons of war", "assault weapons", and so on nattered on about by people who either are ignorant, or acting with bad intent.). Yet this sort of firearm has been available to the public for > 100 years. The AR-15 itself has been available to the civilian market since the year I was born, and I'm nearly 60 years old. And as I have mentioned just above, the recent Washington State "assault weapons" ban includes firearms that have been in my family since the 1800s.

Short question: Do you think *any* firearms are reasonable for the general public to have?

---

The types of firearms used for hunting (as for food) but not those that are used as assault weapons (as the army and militias use). I can't give you a list because I am not an expert on weapons. I just know that the recent (and not so recent) mass shooting seem to be done by "assault weapons". Why is it necessary to have weapons that fire multiple rounds except for the purpose of killing people? I guess littlebittybobby answered that question above in his Viet Nam explanation???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

Why is it necessary to have weapons that fire multiple rounds except for the purpose of killing people?

---

So, in your mind, is a standard revolver an assault weapon? If not, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

The types of firearms used for hunting (as for food) but not those that are used as assault weapons (as the army and militias use). I can't give you a list because I am not an expert on weapons. I just know that the recent (and not so recent) mass shooting seem to be done by "assault weapons". Why is it necessary to have weapons that fire multiple rounds except for the purpose of killing people? I guess littlebittybobby answered that question above in his Viet Nam explanation???

---

Well, people need to stop doing stupid stuff, like attending events in arenas that are susceptible to snipers. Do it as a matter of self-preservation, and save $$$ to boot. That is--IF you think it poses a substantial risk. But yeah---those assault weapons were not designed for sniper(long-range) use; It's the long gun (rifle) that's best for accuracy at a distance. But yeah---what will happen(and you can take it to the bank)is that ammo will dry up. New milspec and hunting calibers will be developed--(like 6.5 Creedmoor and Grende)l, and the old reliable NATO and Russian sizes will cease production. Only reloading at home will be an option. Juyst try finding cheap ammo for Arisaka, Carcano, even Enfield and Mauser. Once cheap, now scarce. NATO & Comblok are next. Sooo, if you've got some milsurp guns or knock-off of the AR, better stock up now. Keep out of mischief, tho. There's a "neighbor"(axx-ho) across the 4 lane, and was one down the block, who used to practice shooting his AR or AKJ or whatever, and it's like the 4th of July. Pretty much an expensive waste of ammo. Plus, the noise pollution and proximity to other people makes it a nuisance. But, oh well. What's in MY littlebitty Arsenal? A 1952 Polish-made M 44 carbine. It sold for like $59.95 back when they were imported from comblock countries dispersing their stores of obsolete weapons, back in the 90's. Yup. It's accurate, but slow, bolt-action(3 on the tree) and shoots a powerful round that dates back to the 1800'sUntil a year or so ago, wally-world carried cheap ammo for it! That said, You'd have much difficulty concealing it. It's also got a non-detachable bayonet, which makes it all the more conspicuous. Yup. Thing is, one round will go through one person and through a couple more unfortunates behind them, after going through a wooden wall. See? But yeah---it's harmless, 'cause it's not an "assault" weapon, right?. If dems really want to carry out their plan of keeping everyone nice n safe, why not eliminate that part o' the constitution that allows us to peaceably assemble and to get out and just DRIVE around as a form of entertainment? That'd go a long way to shrink the venues at which mass shootings occur! Well, wouldn't it? Plus, design schools, churches, auditoriums, etc., with secure entries--a step that is already being done. In case some crazy parent goes nuts cause his kid didn't make the squad, or whatever. See? But yeah---you also have these youngsters with too much testosterone and crazy on meth roaming around at night, disgruntled incels or sociopaths or whoever, looking for trouble, armed with a gun--any kind of gun. So yeah--societal change is gonna be essential. Not just mindlessly blaming "assault-style guns). See? Hope that helps you some, Frugal Bugle. Thankk Mee.

As stated, I am not an expert on guns...