Meh, while there are misleading (such as quoting discredited whoppers from Vietnam regarding the extreme lethality of the 5.56 round) it’s more of a selective hit piece. It’s like relying on Zinn’s “a peoples history of the United States “ for a balanced overview of American history.
Another inaccurate article on assault weapons.
- Thread starter Ranb
- Start date
Meh, while there are misleading (such as quoting discredited whoppers from Vietnam regarding the extreme lethality of the 5.56 round) it’s more of a selective hit piece. It’s like relying on Zinn’s “a peoples history of the United States “ for a balanced overview of American history.
Not really saying much but it's one of thee most accurate anti-gun articles I've seen in a while. I say anti-gun because unless I missed it, the article calls ar-15's "military inspired weapons" or something like that but doesn't say the same about any Mauser type bolt action gun on the market.
All existing guns and mags were not affected by the AWB of 1994.
The PLCAA is not absolute protection for the gun industry. The writer of the article could have pointed this out after quoting Koskoff's foolhardy claim.
Last edited:
Interpretation and application are required for every amendment and every law. That's what courts do.
But speaking of the Second....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...2c36d2b1245_story.html?utm_term=.e59a485d76aa
Last edited:
Not when driving on private property. I normally use my guns on private property.
Some guns are. https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-act
So as long as the Ranb Militia of the USA is well regulated (by me of course) I should be golden? I can see another fix to the 2nd coming up soon.
So as long as the Ranb Militia of the USA is well regulated (by me of course) I should be golden? I can see another fix to the 2nd coming up soon.
You don't get to form your own. A militia would be defined as an organized state body, like the National Guard or state police.
But then that might mean I can't form my own church or write my own book. Both of those things are regulated in a way or at least not allowed to be absolute.
Knowing that a military cartridge ranges from 22lr to 50BMG and up, not as lethal as some others is a very broad term.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
5.56 NATO is far, far less lethal than many civilian rifle cartridges. There are as many stories, probably more, out there of it's lack of stopping power, than it "blowing people's heads off" etc. There is a long history of military rifles being sold for civilian use, and their ammo being adopted for those purposes (.30-06 for example).
Last edited:
So the worst you can say about the article is that the cartridge is not extremely lethal? Fair enough. Let's just call it "lethal enough for government work."
Last edited:
I'm just saying that the article's description of:
""a heel wound," where "the projectile entered the bottom of the right foot causing the leg to split from the foot to the hip."
... are a bit overblown. The AR15 is not the dirty Harry of rifles.
Here's what an emergency room doc says about .223 wounds. I'm not sure it matters much that wounds from some other cartridges could be worse. People aren't shooting up schools and movie theaters with elephant guns.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Elephant gun? It's less lethal than almost all other modern rifle cartridges. 303 British fires a bullet 3x as heavy at 85% the velocity. It's far more deadly.
Heres a marine's opinion who served in Fallujah.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...e-223-may-not-be-lethal-enough-for-civilians/
3point14
Pi
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 23,085
bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,408
My reading of Federalist 46 tells me that we are already in a well regulated militia.
The object of said militia being to protect us from the National Guard or state police in the event our current government becomes tyrannical.
And that is the foundation of the current lunacy.
https://www.salon.com/2015/12/09/th...ening_fantasy_that_blocks_any_action_on_guns/
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2012/12/15/our-moloch/
As commenters observed, it's likely that a fighter in a combat zone was wearing body armor. But so what? Is a magazine with 20 or 30 .223 cartridges lethal enough to kill a lot of people? Suppose the Las Vegas shooter had used a more powerful cartridge in a bolt-action deer rifle that held three rounds? Would he have killed as many people? AR15s are a package: lethal high-velocity rounds, long range, rapid rate of fire, high-capacity magazine. This is a military weapon that civilians have no good reason to own -- unless they're crouched in their basements waiting for the revolution.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Unnecessary. Certain drugs are banned in most countries. Banning them means that they can't be sold openly in stores, and anyone caught with them gets in trouble. Certain broad types of firearms can be banned in the same way. Sure, some people might still get hold of them, but they'd be in trouble if caught.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Well, that pretty much proves that said framers could not conceive of future weapons development, given that the modern military has hardware that will literally drive over a few civilians with small arms.