Obama Administration and Gun Rights

Sheer curiosity...I have certainly made my opinions known. Seems fair, no?

And you keep saying "design for Max Damage in the Least amount of Time". When you say this, are you referring to magazine capacity or are you referring to something else?

 

Yup seems fair -

I think about things at a higher level I suppose, a derringer vs a machine gun. I have worked primarily in the area of delivery systems. Each tactical organization of the military have specific needs in terms of this characteristic, thus drive the technology designs to the need. Here is a really cool technology that DARPA is investing in...how cool is this, how much damage do you think this little baby will be able to do?

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/46570

 

I'd say they should be able to get the job done with that :eek:

But still - could you clarify this:

 

A sniper only needs a single delivery system with high precision, a dude in the infantry want as many bullets around him as he makes it up the beach is as little time as possible...he is going for the most destruction in the least amount of time, how would you like to accomplish this, there are many ways, how about the Navy Seal what delivery system would suit him best?

The fundamental concept of an automatic weapon is to increase the speed of the delivery of it's payload.....connected yet? You are trying to jump to how one executes the delivery...I am saying that is a function of the application.

 

Okay....thanks for clarifying....I guess :confused:

The only reason I asked is because the only functional difference between an AK 47 and any semi-auto hunting rifle is magazine capacity...I was simply wondering if that was your main "concern" with "assault weapons".

 

I have no concern with assault WEAPONS...I simply state they are designed to deliver payload very fast. How the delivery is implemented in the weapon is up to the designer.

In the article I posted how are they increasing the rate of payload delivery?

Rather than use mechanical firing pins to shoot bullets one by one, O'Dwyer's gun holds multiple bullets in the barrel -- one behind the other

That is how this assault weapon is being designed to accomplish it's mission.

It is the concept of very fast payload delivery you are trying to assure John Q is OK, when handled properly and with the proper safeguards.......in preventing assault weapons from being banned IMO.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying and I really think I figured out where we (or at least I) am misunderstanding things...

Just exactly how do you define an assault weapon?

Based on your experience in the defense industry I would say your definition is the "correct" one and not at all in line with our government's "definition" of an assault rifle (in regards to the civilian market).

I really think you are thinking of "true" assault rifles- as in select fire.

The government considers damn near anything semi-automatic with a detachable magazine an "assault weapon". Do you agree with the government's definition?

 

I think (we) the gov't have a difficult time explaining the distinctions that you and I just went "10 rounds" on...so they make it simple. Those that oppose this gross generalization are going to have to state their case and explain those distinctions in laymens terms so the public can first see what is being addressed and then how the technology may be approached in a manner that is acceptable to the majority.

What do I personaly think, well "assault" comes in degrees...just like with the level of gameness in a PB.....and the jury is still out on what I would be comfortable with in the hands of the general public, if they are all like my husband I have no worries....but they arn't, and without seeing reasonable safeguards I am not sure where one draws the line, I am sure where the Gov't has drawn it is to severe...so where does the line belong?

 

IMO, making it "simple" is the lazy man's way out of it. As opposed to putting on their thinking caps and actually trying solve problems, they ban weapons based solely on appearance.

Like:
Banning rifles that have pistol grips - does that pistol grip make it more deadly somehow...

How about folding stocks - is a rifle inherently more dangerous with a folding stock.

Or banning rifles that have barrel shrouds when you don't even know what a freakin' barrel shroud is! How ridiculous is that?

How am supposed to have any respect for these people or the laws they pass when they don't know WTF they are talking about.

It is comparable to banning brindle...I mean "Tiger Striped" APBTs...."cuz we all know dey be da mean ones, yo :cool:"

There are reasonable safeguards in place currently...the assault weapons ban is pending, and IMO is not reasonable.

Problem is, either way - it's guys like your husband and myself who will be punished, because unlike criminals, we will obey the law.

IMO- the line has been drawn and needs to stay exactly where it is. No need for further gun laws- they simply aren't effective...

Call me crazy, but I would prefer my elected officials to be doing something productive...but they fail me every time.

 

There is always tomorrow...don't lose faith! Nice learning from you - and talking too!

 

It's been a pleasure, mydawgs

 

One last thing to save you a bit of trouble. Here are a few things covered under the pervious assault weapons ban. Keep in mind these all apply to semi-auto firearms only, full-autos are regulated differently.

Now seroiusely, read this with an open mind. Read this list and ask yourself how many of these items make a gun "more dangerous" than a standard semi-auto deer rifle in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.

Have a good weekend, mydawgs!

 

Well, here you go......

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=85507

 

Aint none of them more deadly than me at night with my bow. If ya want the truth. J

 

I don't see the recreational keeping of guns any more harmful than the recreation of swords, knives, axes or any other weapon. All of them require that you not be a douche when you use them and to know when and where their usage (if at all) is appropriate. And after someone shoots, stabs, maims me, I'd likely have little concern about who else he got and the time he had to do it in. Where I live gun control has proven to be nothing but a horrible band-aid fix

 

Here is my 2 cents on the matter at hand.
We are at fault for the government but not just by voting, by not knowing the facts and letting the media control us. We do not need to do this to ourselves, we as pit bull owners can surely see this point. I forget which one said he was "slick", that is so true, he ran a media race and won.
It takes more than just 8yrs to do what has been done to this country; the blame that lies with the presidency along with the parties should be shared with the past few presidents.
We all make mistakes some just bigger than others, no one person can right what has been done to our economy, we make it worse falling into this media trap, when we are told "things are bad" we think "things are bad" so this is the way we will behave. We need to work together and let our frustrations be heard as one voice, and then they will understand we will not be divided but a working body of people working for the good of all.
The gun laws will change, and overtime if we (the people) do nothing, then nothing will be done.

 

It is amazing how easily the media controls the masses. Say something enough times, and everyone starts to believe it. You are absolutely correct, how can a country place all the blame on just one person (Bush). We as a nation need to wake up and start thinking for ourselves. Both parties are equally guilty in my eyes.

 

I know this thread has been dead for a while, but since the man is now President I figured we could make it official...

Crosspost:

 

Again...I know this thread is dead, but I read this article by Ted Nugent earlier and thought I would share.

http://www.wacotrib.com/search/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/02/08/02082009wacnugent.html

Good Ol' Uncle Ted

That's right ladies and gentlemen...our current Attorney General believes The Second Amendment applies to Government Militias as opposed to THE PEOPLE.

 

why can't i buy my ammo at wally world any more? and what is left on the shelf went from 13 bucks this time last year to 21 bucks now? freaking bastagies