Rickles! Of course. The Garand of insult weapons.
Rickles! Of course. The Garand of insult weapons.
So you only glanced at the entire white paper, not read the whole thing? And you probably won't but you will take a "fact sheet" from VPC. Mkay
Not at all, since you highjack ed a Maryland Specific lawsuit to start your diatribe. Now, if you had started a separate thread on the subject then you might have a chance and saying I am mis using context., when in point of fact, you keep moving the goal post.
Your definition sucks and makes absolutely no sense.
From a shooter, one who has actually used both, function. I have never been deployed with anything other than a select fire rifle (I have carried all three, FA, 3 round burst, and the step child SA/3RB/FA). Have I ever used anything other than SA? Nope. Have I ever had the need to? Nope. How about you? Have you ever been ANYWHERE "down range"? Have you ever been anywhere where you have needed FA or 3RB? Have you ever even fired said firearms, or are you just providing your opinion based on what you have read and watched in videos?
Versions of the same weapons, yes, but not the same weapons in function. THAT is the difference, and they matter enough that you, me, and everyone else reading this thread, need to spend $200, get finger prints and wait about 9 months, before you can own a select fire, firearm.
I know enough to know what I am talking about based on real life support in the military, certain units, in certain places. What experience do you have?
I'm so glad you approve based on what you have watched, instead of what you have actually experienced.
Again, approving of my post based on watching a video, instead of personal experience. I'll take my personal experience over your video watching.
Not "ugly" sporting rifles, just semi-automatic rifles, for sporting purposes. If you think that is rediculous, then apparently you have absolutely no clue how we got the Colt Sporter HBAR exempted from the regulated list.
So you want to let them define the most useful firearm for mass shootings, when in point of fact it is a handgun and not a rifle or shotgun?
No it's not, not by name and not as a copy. That has been challenged and I can introduce you to at least two people that have bought one in Maryland since 2013.
Your exercise in trying not to do so would only set us back in what we do and how we do it in Annapolis and other state houses.
Move the goal posts much? You used the cover as an example and now you only want to use the part that is useful to your agruement. It doesn't work that way, you either use it all or not at all. Talk about deflecting.
That is something a lot of us have been saying for a long time, in may of the discussions we have with the other side. To include educating them on the difference between semi-auto and full auto. You seem to think that having such a discussion and making the distinction is a bad thing.
I'm not aware of anyone that has gone to Annapolis or other state house, that has ever pretended that they are a semi-automatic version of the FA counterpart. Where we disagree is that there is no functional difference between the two versions, when in point of fact there are.
HOLY SHIP, MATT/ How about the cliff notes version of your agenda in this and the past 6 pages of your posts.Why, yes, when I am looking for specific information to back up a certain point of discussion, or further investigate a point that somebody made, my instinct is to CTRL-F and search for the information that I'm looking for. In this case, I found no information which claims that the VPC invented the term, as you argued. What I did find was information which suggests that the VPC turned "assault weapon" into a political buzzword and a new gun control policy frontier, which is a very different statement than saying that they invented the term.
But I'm more than happy for you to quote the specific part of the article that you believe supports your point.
No, I'm not moving goal posts at all; you just keep resorting to distraction tactics. Somebody made a claim in the other thread (i.e., that the antis invented the term "assault weapon", and our side never did), so I posted that example to refute their claim. Simple.
Also, IMHO, "moving the goal posts" is what you are doing when you keep resorting to discussing legal definitions (which I don't care about) vs. definitions based on practical differences between firearms (which is what I'm talking about). This really wouldn't be a "definition" debate at all if you and your buddy Boats didn't keep making it into one.
OK, because you said so bluntly?
So in other words, you are saying that when you went downrange, you used your issue M16 or M4 (whichever it was) only in the same FC setting that you are limited to on your personal AR-15s?
And yes, I'm providing my opinion based on what I've read, and what I've watched, and people I've talked to (either online, or IRL). I'm not sure what else I can do. Maybe you think I should go enlist in USAR or the Guard now? Think they'll take me when I'm almost 40 years old?
BTW, being a biological male who doesn't advertise his pronouns on his social media profiles, I am biologically incapable of having children. But that doesn't mean that I'm going to let feminists tell me that I have no right to an opinion on the abortion debate. I've also never had student loans, but I'm still not going to be dissuaded of my opinion on the Biden Administration's student loan forgiveness program.
Right, that may be relevant from a legal perspective. Yes, an M4A1 has a different fire control function than a civilian AR-15, by virtue of the difference in fire control group. But what we're talking about (or rather, what I am talking about) is the practical difference. I am especially thinking about the practical difference for someone with minimal training, vs. someone who is an experienced shooter.
Oh, that's rich. So basically, according to you, nobody can speak about the differences between firearms based on anything except their military experience?
The problem with that argument is that there are veterans in Congress who have also appealed to their military experience to make the argument that AR-15s should be banned. During the debates about VA's gun ban in the past few months, Dan Helmer kept telling everyone that we should trust him that ARs need to be banned because he's a veteran. For that matter, at the en banc hearing in the 4th, Judge Wilkinson tried to make the same argument based on his service in Vietnam (50+ years ago). I suppose that I'm supposed to listen to him when he says that, "The kick was so powerful that when a bullet struck a human being, it splintered them in all sorts of different pieces. There was very little left of the human being?"
I care about their military experience about as much as I care about yours: Zero. Doesn't that I'm not open to hearing what you have to say, but if you think you can tell me, "Shut up, I know better than you because I served," that ain't happening.
I know what I've read, and what I've discussed with others on this forum.
I don't want to let them do anything. I'm making my own observations.
Also, you're once again forgetting that the other side is complaining about certain types of handguns (like the Steyr SPP that I own, which is a semi-auto version of the TMP machine pistol), not just rifles.
Noted, I only know what I've seen on MSP's site.
What you're basically saying here is that you're afraid of the truth, so you want to suppress it.
You want to be the pot or the kettle?
Where did I ever say that? I would do the exact same thing in your position. I agree with you that there are too many people who think "assault weapons" (the ones that the antis want to ban right now) are full-auto weapons. My own wife thought that way until I took her shooting.
I just want us to stop pretending that all semi-automatic weapons are exactly the same thing. As I already told Boats: My Glock 34 and Steyr SPP are both 9mm pistols, and both can take magazines that hold over 30 rounds. But there are functional differences between them that make one of those guns (the SPP) far more controllable when it is fired rapidly compared to the other (the Glock).
Except that's not what I said. Yes, of course there are functional differences - which reside in the FCG. I care more about the practical differences (i.e., what can an inexperienced shooter do with one vs. the other), even though you keep trying to shift the debate to talk legal definitions.
HOLY SHIP, MATT/ How about the cliff notes version of your agenda in this and the past 6 pages of your posts.
I got to page 1 and now page 6.
So hypothetically, Larry Vickers owns a Dodge Hellcat . Larry usually drives it 25mph to the grocery store and back.
So my clapped out '86 Dodge Ares is actually a Super Car . Because if it it will only go 25mph on a good day with a tailwind , it's still a muscle car, because that's as fast as Larry drives .
You are simply pushing the "mattfinals definition of assault weapon" at this point in circular arguments. However right you may think you are in defining assault weapon in the way you as an individual do, it doesn't matter to the rest of the planet that uses it in a different way.I've stated my "agenda" repeatedly now, even if you choose not to read it. My agenda is for us to retire failed arguments, and stick to using the Constitution and other, better arguments (e.g., the fact that AR-15s are statistically not used often in firearms homicides) to make our case against FSA 2013. It's not my fault if your mind is so simple that you see any perspective which doesn't align perfectly with yours as tantamount to having an anti-gun agenda.
The difference between you and I is that I can accept the truth, but still be confident in my convictions. The empirical truth is that (1.) there are not many practical differences between the guns that the antis call "assault weapons" and their select-fire counterparts, and (2.) those weapons should still not be banned, because they are constitutionally protected and (even by the antis' logic) not statistically used often in homicides or crimes. It it possible for both (1.) and (2.) to be true at the same time, even though our community lives with a sort of dogma against admitting that (1.) is true.
BTW, I have posted pics of my own ARs in the "Rifles" forum. I also already posted a video by a YouTuber from the community who shares my perspective.
You are simply pushing the "mattfinals definition of assault weapon" at this point in circular arguments. However right you may think you are in defining assault weapon in the way you as an individual do, it doesn't matter to the rest of the planet that uses it in a different way.
You'll argue this, I'm sure, but it doesn't matter. Type another few thousands of meaningless words. The world will go on without the definition you think "assault weapon" deserves.
I'm going to reply to you, because I don't agree, and I'm going to defend my perspective.
Very well aware of what Feinstein said. I've been around this community a long time, so I do understand that there are many on the left who wish they could ban most guns and confiscate them from the people. You misunderstood; what they might want, and what they understand that they are able to do, are two separate things.
The second para in your post exemplifies what I am pushing back against. You're basically telling me that I should continue to perpetuate lies because the "other side" will use them against us. I don't care what they want to do - I care about the truth. You're also acting as though they do not already use our own statements against us: Things like the Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons cover that I posted earlier. Statements by our experts (like Larry Vickers) who say that they essentially fired their issued M16s in combat as if they were AR-15s (i.e., semi only). Instead of telling lies, why not just accept that AR-15s are "assault rifles" (albeit neutered versions), and then say, "Who cares - they're protected by the Constitution, and that's all that matters?"
If you are really so afraid of the truth that you feel the need to suppress it, and you want to encourage the community to suppress it, how are you any different than religious extremists or communists who stamp out free thought? Our community claims to hate authoritarianism, and argues that we need to preserve the RKBA in order to fight it, but yet it practices its own sort of intellectual authoritarianism.
In closing: I'd also like you to watch this video by a guy who shares my perspective:
Maybe you should go tell him that he needs to shut up before the antis use his statements against us in court?
No, I'm trying to encourage us not to be liars and to simply embrace the Constitution, not try and pretend that an M4 that has a semi-only FCG is somehow a "sporting rifle" because we're afraid to tell the antis to shove it, because firearms designed for military use are the most Constitutionally protected of all.
No, I'm trying to encourage us not to be liars and to simply embrace the Constitution, not try and pretend that an M4 that has a semi-only FCG is somehow a "sporting rifle" because we're afraid to tell the antis to shove it, because firearms designed for military use are the most Constitutionally protected of all.
That's a battle rifle.Actual Assault rifle-
Thought you said definitions don't matter.The only official definition anyone's given me is from a 50-year old guidebook published by an intelligence agency.
Yep, I assault paper, steel targets, and soda cans all the time. I dont even ask their pronouns first. How dare I?Assault weapon is redundant. Weapons are used to commit assaults.
According to the Colorado legislature (HB23) ANY magazine fed semi auto rifle, ANY pistol with a threaded barrel and many others are "assault weapons", hence an assault weapon is whatever the person uttering the term thinks it is. Gun digest used the term to sell magazines to interested people, the Colorado and Maryland legislature use the term to restrict rights.
"Sporting Rifle" is a different side of the same coin. Albeit more truthful because target shooting, practical shooting, hunting, etc are all "sporting" activities
The AR15 is simply a rifle, or carbine, if "sporting rifle" bothers you so much.
If the pro2a community is unable to convince the antis that "sporting weapons" are protected, what makes you think that arguement will be MORE effective by telling them to "shove it" or saying "yep, the AR is a weapon of war". Your theory will make everything worse.
Remember, the antis are people who dont know what they dont know. The believe a brace makes an AR full auto. They think 9mm blows the lungs out of a target. They think that magazines are consumable and if they ban them they will go away after they are used once (all are actual quotes from lawmakers).
They think that an AR15 and an M4 are basically the same because they look similar despite a significant functional difference (which is also one of your arguments).
That's not my argument; that's you shortening and distorting my argument. There is a functional difference, but not much of a practical difference. I've said that enough times already.
LMAO!Fabs better watch out or he will no longer be King of the long posts.