Take a look at aging around the world in 'A New Age,' a special report by AARP and Magnum Photos.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
166
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

166 Views
Message 51 of 225

The current versions of the M-16 do not have a full-auto selection - proven to be totally ineffective, and GIs very seldom use the 3-round burst option. Over 90% of all rounds fired in combat are in the semi-automatic mode.

 

The M4 which is virtually identical (except for the stock and carring handle) has the full-auto mode, which was added for close combat/urban warfare but is ineffective with the old 20-round magazines, and is only effective in full-auto for close combat simply because it's very hard to keep it on target at more than a couple dozen yards. Also, in full-auto mode the GI will expend his/her entire combat load of ammo, 210 rounds in 7 magazines,  in about 45 seconds.

 

The MILITARY needs the semi-auto capability and the extended (30-round) magazines because it kills more people in less time. Those are the characteristics that make a weapon "MILITARY", not the presence of a bayonet clip or it's physical appearance.

 

There is NO legitimate civilian use for semi-auto fire OR more than an 8 round capacity. The old M-1 that Patton called the most decisive weapon in WWII was semi-auto with an 8 round clip.

 

What function requires a civilian to be able to discharge 120 rounds in 1 minute for an extended period of time that could not be done discharging 12-15 rounds in 1 minute? Answer: NONE.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
166
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
159
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

159 Views
Message 52 of 225

@ChasKy53 wrote:


You can make it either one you want.   But of course you would anyway.


Yet another dodge ............... why?


No dodge, my answer speaks for itself.  Besides I have no idea of what Trump supporters would do.  Maybe you should ask one? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
159
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
177
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

177 Views
Message 53 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@mandm84 wrote:

tex maybe you should go to one of your local Gun Shows to witness the madness ?


You keep posting as if I'm not familiar with firearms.  I don't have to go to gun shows, but why should I since I haven't own guns or handled them for going on 40 years now.  You seem to keep ignoring that.  I've seen enough 'madness' to last a lifetime.


There's no doubt that most career LEOS have also seen enough madness to last a lifetime...

 

Not owned, handled, or fired firearms for most of the last forty years does make one's base of data/knowledge regarding firearms decidedly out-of date and dependent upon the opinions and experience of others...

 

What might be said of a person who has not driven a vehicle or used a computer since 1979?

 

Are you aware that the origin of the parent cartridge that was slightly improved to become the military cartridge for the M1 dates back to 1906 (32 self-loading and 35 self loading) - the same year the famous and venerable 30-06 (7.62x63mm) cartridge for the original M1 rifle - the M1 Garand was adopted?

 

The US armed forces dropped the M1 Carbine in 1973 because it was a design originally intended for support forces to carry to fill the gap between the large heavy M1 Garand and the still too heavy and short range .45 ACP Thompson Machine Gun, and with the advent of the M16, the size and weight problems were gone as was the effective range issue...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
177
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
171
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

171 Views
Message 54 of 225

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

 


Nothing but a litany of straw man arguments Tex  ...... all to evade from your inability to provide a "reasonable explanation" as to why a civilian needs to have a military style assault weapon!


Ok, myexper, myexper, myexper, I'll bite again; you still haven't said what your definition of a military style assault weapon is.  Fact is I doubt you would even know.  Further, you haven't defined your experience with any type of firearm.  And who are you to decide what type firearms anyone should have. 

 

You can't even define what a military style assault weapon is.  I even doubt if you have ever handled or fired any type firearm.  Further, you have worn that phrase 'straw man argument' completely out long ago, but in my opinion, that has been the gist of all your posts. 


To most leftists, an assault weapon is any gun that shoots bullets and looks menacing.


Absurd NOTHAPPENING .....

Actually, "to ALL" reasonable persons, "an assault weapon is any gun that" has been designed as an assault weapon .... like the inventor of the AR15 who designed this weapon to be a military only assault weapon ..... NEVER intended for civilian use!


You have proved that YOU don't know what an assault rifle is!  Any good definition WON'T use the same term you are trying to define. The AR15 is a civilian weapon that has no auto or burst functionality.

 

My definition of an assault rifle is any long gun that has a selectable lever that allows you to go from single shot, to burst, or even full automatic.  That, my friend is NOT an AR15!


I'll stay with what the inventor of the AR15 had to say about the combat weapon he invented.

DUMP TRUMP AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
171
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
163
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

163 Views
Message 55 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:


"an assault weapon is any gun that" has been designed as an assault weapon .... like the inventor of the AR15 who designed this weapon to be a military only assault weapon ..... NEVER intended for civilian use!

"an assault weapon is any gun that" has been designed as an assault weapon"   What a profound statement...of course such would be designed as an assault weapon...what else?  But you are incorrect about the AR-15.  The AR-15 is the civilian version of a M-15, which is mainly for combat use in a combat situation. 


Wrong Tex .....

The AR15 was designed to counter the Russian AK47 combat assault rifle ..... and therefore is a combat assault rifle ...... NEVER intended for civilian use.

I believe that what the inventor of the AR15 stated about his combat assault rifle is far more accurate.

And BTW, the AR15 was distributed to the South Vietnamese ARMY at the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam ..... hardly civilian use!

DUMP TRUMP AND MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
163
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
161
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

161 Views
Message 56 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:


Do you really think that trump supporters would stand up against him for declaring a national emergency and banning certain weapons?  So far they have accepted anything he does.


I wouldn't know, so why don't you ask them? For myself, I have stated what the Constitution says.


So is your answer to my question "yes", or "no"?


You can make it either one you want.   But of course you would anyway.


Yet another dodge ............... why?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
161
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
154
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

154 Views
Message 57 of 225

@mandm84 wrote:

tex maybe you should go to one of your local Gun Shows to witness the madness ?


You keep posting as if I'm not familiar with firearms.  I don't have to go to gun shows, but why should I since I haven't own guns or handled them for going on 40 years now.  You seem to keep ignoring that.  I've seen enough 'madness' to last a lifetime.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
154
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
154
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

154 Views
Message 58 of 225

tex maybe you should go to one of your local Gun Shows to witness the madness ?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
154
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
164
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

164 Views
Message 59 of 225

NOT says "By the left's definition, most handguns would be "assault weapons" and you would ban these also. That way, only thugs from the inner city would be armed."

---------------------------

 

I'm not left , but who said anything about banning handguns ? Do you need 30 - 50 Rounds in your handgun to hit your target ? In New York you should have no problem defending yourself with a legally owned 10 Round .45 Cal. handgun.

 

If you need more than 10 Rounds , maybe you shouldn't have any Gun and we don't live in Somalia !!

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
164
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
172
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

172 Views
Message 60 of 225

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Why would anyone claim the right to own an "assault weapon" unless they were planning on assaulting someone with it?


By the left's definition, most handguns would be "assault weapons" and you would ban these also. That way, only thugs from the inner city would be armed.


Only those that can fire more than 8 times before reloading, and for the "automatics" that would mean a mod to the magazines. It would also mean the OTHER Thugs in the city would be getting rich ratting out their fellow thugs for the bounty on illegal weapons while the "rat-ee" would be serving time.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
172
Views