what do you think is more effective for killing lots of people in a short period of time an M4 fired on full auto or on semi auto?
Meaning what, precisely? That an individual who is capable of reading, is incapable of claiming their opinion was formed by their own researching of the matter? That they must instead accept an opinion assigned to them by someone else? The individual who cannot, or simply refuses, to scientifically justify the ten round capacity limitation on magazines, is in no position to be objecting to others. Neither scenario is truly more lethal than the other, as multiple individuals have successfully lived through each scenario. There is no set amount for the number of rounds of ammunition that must be used to kill a single individual. Individual soldiers would object to such a move, but those tasked with procurement would certainly welcome such a downgrading approach that would reduce the amount of funding needed to be spent on munitions to supply to the troops out in the field. Use of hyperbole and attempts at derailing the discussion duly noted, and ultimately ignored. Was the article presented on the part of yourself even read before it was posted? Most likely it was not, otherwise it would not have even been presented to begin with. The article itself specifies the MG-42 fully-automatic firearm was only of use in defensive battles, meaning they were fixed position weaponry not used by individual troops who were on the move. It states the weapon in question was only beneficial at a strong point that was backed by mobile reserves. Firearms such as the MG-42 are very large, very heavy, mounted on either a bipod or a tripod, and operated by a squad of at least three individuals. One to quick-change out overheated barrels, one to operate the firearm, and one who would feed it and ensure the belts of ammunition could flow freely without hanging up, as it would need to go through hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition, which is far more than any individual soldier could ever hope to carry on their person. Even the comments to the article do not agree with the assessment of the lethality of specific weapons at the time.
A lot of rambling, and still no references. You don’t even correctly identify what lethality means ? Toy soldiers who get their bogus ideas from the backs of cereal boxes and Fix News, need to enlist.
Show the exact methodology that was utilized in determining how there is not a single individual in the entire united states, who could possibly have legitimate need of eleven or more rounds of ammunition in a single magazine. Demonstrate how the decision is neither arbitrary or capricious in its nature. Such it ultimately the entire premise of the original topic in this discussion, before it was hijacked on the part of yourself and others in an attempt to argue the amount was determined through sheer common sense, but making no effort to explain how common sense played into the matter. Present the legitimate, scientific references on the part of yourself, before making such demands of others.
translation-you don't have a response that would help advance your anti gun agenda so you post this silly nonsense
With said problem being that the truth is not on the part of those who seek greater firearm-related restrictions. Otherwise they would cease making claims regarding fully-automatic firearms, what background checks do and do not do, and claiming that only mass shooters have need of magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. But since such erroneous claims and many others are made at the drop of a hat, the truth is simply not on their side.
I’m erroneous ? But, defending full autos as no more lethal then a semi auto when even the NRA isn’t wacko enough to say it.....isn’t erroneous ?
Last I heard flame throwers are not prohibited by the feds and legal in nearly every state, 48 I believe.
Nah, I started to assemble examples, but noticed when you are asked to do the same, as with Xenamnes, you don’t respond. To find examples you can query as I have, but don’t. It seems you want to others to play fetch while running the hamster wheel with you. It’s not worth my time to provide you with examples you will discard in seconds by some nuance to keep the hamster game going. You’ve not contributed anything of value this entire thread, and seem only interested in goading others. So, like a few others here... done with the game and you. My first and only ignore.
There's an easy solution to your incessant cries about nukes in the hands of civilians: pass a constitutional amendment to ban them. Considering that Iran, with the best engineers our American universities could create, can't produce a nuclear weapon, it's a moot point, but easily solvable.
They should be easier to get than a hunting rifle. If a man cannot afford one then the government should give him one suitable for use with, and compatible with, the weapons used by the standing army.
Bump stocks have not long been banned; it was only recently. But bump stocks do not turn a semi-automatic into a machine gun. It is still one pull of the trigger, one bullet out the end of the barrel. And the trigger is still pulled by the shooters finger. I posted in another thread, I think it was here, where the ATF had banned 20 inch pieces of shoe strings with loops in the end. Really. They actually did that, banned 20-inch pieces of shoe string with loops because someone had demonstrated how to do the same thing as a bump stock - make the recoil of the gun cause the gun to move forward against your stationary finger so that one trigger action would lead to the next trigger action. They later rescinded the shoe string ban, realizing just how completely stupid it was. Considering that the bump stock is nothing more than the same gimmick, banning it is just as stupid. An AR-15 is not a machine gun. Period. It fires one round per pull of the trigger just like any other semi-automatic gun and there's nothing solved by restricting them in any way any more than restricting any other gun - which is nothing at all. The only thing banning them does is provide temporary, partial, relief of hoplophobia. Of course full symptoms would return in just minutes after a ban of ugly, black, guns was approved and the hoplophobes would be looking for the next ban or regulation. Watch as Jerry Miculek fires his revolver at a rate of 480 rounds per minute. Or fires, reloads, fires again, at a rate of 240 rounds per minute, including reloads. Neither magazine limits or gun style can stop the determined shooter. The only thing that stops a determined shooter is a more determined survivor with a gun.
No reason for you to get so triggered. All I'm doing is pointing out there's infringements already in place for 2A. And if the answer is so easy, your words, why hasn't it been done?
Because it's supposed to be hard to do. The question is, if it is worth it, why hasn't the left done it? No one would object. But the only time private ownership of nuclear bombs matters is when the topic is used to defend taking away my 1911s - as in 7 shots but still semi-automatic.
LOL. You just literally called it an easy option. Nuke bombs aren't the only arms infringed upon. I listed a few more. And there's certainly much more than I've listed. The entire point is, you seem to be unable to grasp, is many arms are being infringed upon. Your claim has always been, NO Arms should be infringed upon. But many are. Get it????
There are infringements on the 1A and several other "A's" as well. What Americans that have any sense are against is the, so called, "common sense" infringements that only make sense in small-minded liberal/progressive/socialist minds.
