|
Your donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

Default why anyone wants an "assault rifle"

December 15th, 2013, 09:42
True, but I find it laughable when people (I'm not talking about you Toff) venture forth equipped for small scale war and yet call themselves "hunters".
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#241

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,497

Default 

December 15th, 2013, 16:08
Originally Posted by tuukka View Post
Personally, I think it's fairly lame to hunt animals with assault rifles. Feels like play-hunting by people who are not cut out for real hunting. Just about every hunter I know of, would react to that picture with disgust.

Here in Finland, when wild animals become too prevalent on some area, the task of hunting them down is given to real, trained, experienced hunters. Not paid professionals, but people who consider hunting a serious hobby. Hunters who don't need an assault rifle to take down a simple animal.
Actually, most assault rifles are several orders of magnitude less accurate than a traditional bolt action rifle. So perhaps your "serious hunter" friends just aren't up for the challenge.

In all seriousness though, people like to build stuff. And they like to use stuff they've built in the real world. Building a decent AR for hunting purposes costs about a third as much (or less) as building a decent custom bolt action. Seriousness has nothing to do with it. It's simple economics.

And it's not as if there is any significant advantage to hunting with as assault rifle. Probably much like in your country, hunters here consider it a point of pride to take down an animal with a single, clean shot. Are there some back woods inbreds that like bumpfiring into the local deer population? Probably. Fortunately they tend to keep to themselves.
CrazyIrish is offline

CrazyIrish

Keeper of the Watch

#242

Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 604

Default 72 Killed Resisting Gun Confiscation in Boston

December 15th, 2013, 21:15
Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.

Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.

Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.

One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.

Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.

Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.

And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.

On July 4th, 1776 these same extremists signed the Declaration of Independence, pledging to each other and their countrymen their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Many of them lost everything, including their families and their lives over the course of the next few years.

- old news reenactment

"A strong president, means having the strength to resist the temptation of taking all that power isn't yours" - Ron Paul

"If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions",- Government
mudsling3 is offline

mudsling3

mudsling3's Avatar
Sentinel

#243

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 560

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 19:57
So, basically, War of Independence was all about a Right to Bear Arms?
zahratustra is offline

zahratustra

SasqWatch

#244

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,497

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 20:42
Originally Posted by zahratustra View Post
So, basically, War of Independence was all about a Right to Bear Arms?
Of course not. It was principally about taxation—money, as always, is at the root. There was a lot more going on than strictly guns, as I'm sure you know. However, since the Crown was making extensive use of gun control to attempt to keep the colonists under thumb and gun ownership proved critically necessary to the successful rejection of that overreaching government, the parallel is much more appropriate than you seem to think.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#245

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,383

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 21:46
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
Of course not. It was principally about taxation—money, as always, is at the root. There was a lot more going on than strictly guns, as I'm sure you know. However, since the Crown was making extensive use of gun control to attempt to keep the colonists under thumb and gun ownership proved critically necessary to the successful rejection of that overreaching government, the parallel is much more appropriate than you seem to think.
Especially since aside from training and fancy uniforms and hats, 'minute men' with squirrel guns and hunting knives were essentially on 1:1 armament parity with British soldiers.

As opposed to now, where you could give every member of a town 400,000 guns, and any government with a reasonable military could run through it in 15 minutes if they really wanted to do so.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#246

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 22:19
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
As opposed to now, where you could give every member of a town 400,000 guns, and any government with a reasonable military could run through it in 15 minutes if they really wanted to do so.
True to an extent, but giving up hope isn't really an option for the folks we're talking about. So, what you're left with is a rather complex balance. Nothing guaranteed, but real world examples make each one good enough to hang a hat on.

First off, there's the hope that the military (at least the folks actually throwing the heavy ordinance) wouldn't accept orders to fire on the general citizenry. Given the "glory and honor" tradition assigned to those in the military by the folks we're discussing, that's not really an empty hope. After all, 1 little Chinese dude with a deathwish stopped an entire line of tanks in Tiennamen (sp), right?

Second, 300,000,000 people with guns might be able to to sway the equation and that's also not exactly empty hope. After all, a bunch of nutjobs with rifles took over Libya by sheer numbers and theft/raiding of military ordinance.

Third, the manpower requirement to crush an armed rebellion across a nation of our size inevitably leads to prioritization. So, the stormtroopers take all the unarmed pansies in New York rather than shooting it out with a handful of armed-to-the-teeth militia types in Nowhere, Montanta. Again, not exactly an empty hope. I give you Afghanistan, where more than a few military powers have managed to pacify the population centers without ever really putting a dent in the loons in the mountains.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#247

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,383

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 22:53
Oh I agree with most of that stuff, and all I was really saying was that the armament level difference between revolutionary times and now is so different that it is hardtop draw a realistic comparison.

As for 'shooting on the citizenry' … I think we have our answer many times over based on what has happened in the post-9/11 US. Sad but true … at least based on demonstrated history.

And when it comes to crushing an actual uprising, I wonder what would happen … our nation has become so militarized and so opposed to diplomacy and so polarized that I could see a very violent counter-uprising before any government forces were involved.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#248

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 23:03
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
Especially since aside from training and fancy uniforms and hats, 'minute men' with squirrel guns and hunting knives were essentially on 1:1 armament parity with British soldiers.
Individual soldiers? Sure 1 on 1, but the British military had all sorts of things the colonial militias did not at the beginning - heavy arms (cannon for instance), better produced shot and black powder (the colonial army had problems at the beginning with very poor quality black powder that often didn't work) and most importantly, much better training and discipline. It wasn't even close to a fair fight at the beginning.

As opposed to now, where you could give every member of a town 400,000 guns, and any government with a reasonable military could run through it in 15 minutes if they really wanted to do so.
Ahh, so that's why we so easily pacified Afganistan and Iraq!

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#249

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,180

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 23:13
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Individual soldiers? Sure 1 on 1, but the British military had all sorts of things the colonial militias did not at the beginning - heavy arms (cannon for instance), better produced shot and black powder (the colonial army had problems at the beginning with very poor quality black powder that often didn't work) and most importantly, much better training and discipline. It wasn't even close to a fair fight at the beginning.
I highlighted training - my point is that comparing the stuff you mention to what I could legally buy (semi-auto weapons) to tanks, jets, bombers and aircraft carriers … is pretty much like asking someone if the blue car is faster than the orange one.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Ahh, so that's why we so easily pacified Afganistan and Iraq!
No - that was because we were not willing to do what it took to win the wars. In Iraq and Afghanistan we chose a deliberate and 'minimally invasive' tactic to try to only hit military targets.

Not since WWII have we been willing to 'do what it takes'. There are snips of it in Vietnam, where there was carpet-bombing, napalm, and so on. But nothing like fire-bombing Dresden and dropping A-bombs on Japan.

Not saying that I disagree - but my point was that if our government decided Texas was the root of all evil … they could basically make it cease to exist by this weekend, and it really wouldn't matter how many personally owned guns there were.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#250

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 23:29
I'll agree with that to a point (Believe me I think our strategy in everything since the beginning of Korea has been FUBAR), however when dealing with an insurection/uprising, tanks and heavy machinery are largely useless. Even airpower is pretty useless unless you have good intel or are planning to carpet bomb the entire area.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#251

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,180

Default 

December 16th, 2013, 23:35
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I'll agree with that to a point (Believe me I think our strategy in everything since the beginning of Korea has been FUBAR), however when dealing with an insurection/uprising, tanks and heavy machinery are largely useless. Even airpower is pretty useless unless you have good intel or are planning to carpet bomb the entire area.
Oh, I know - this whole discussion is pretty much straw man stuff anyway … but imagine a Tea Bagger President in power and a liberal uprising … they bomb out Boston or San Francisco and the uprising is quelled in a nano-second. That was one of the keys of maintaining proper dictatorships … you are willing to see your people as enemies and do whatever is required to maintain order - YOUR order.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#252

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

December 23rd, 2013, 16:03
Originally Posted by tuukka View Post
Personally, I think it's fairly lame to hunt animals with assault rifles. Feels like play-hunting by people who are not cut out for real hunting. Just about every hunter I know of, would react to that picture with disgust.

Here in Finland, when wild animals become too prevalent on some area, the task of hunting them down is given to real, trained, experienced hunters. Not paid professionals, but people who consider hunting a serious hobby. Hunters who don't need an assault rifle to take down a simple animal.
That rifle only shoots 5.56 mm bullets. Pretty small compared to "real" hunting rifles. I've got a 30-6 that is a real hunting rifle and it is really the same thing as an assault rifle with a different label. The only difference is the clip size but you can get large clips for hunting rifles also.

To me the mark of a real hunter is the ability to drop the animal with one bullet and have it not suffer. The gun used is totally irrelevant.
Toff is offline

Toff

Toff's Avatar
Sentinel

#253

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 582

Default Interesting

December 27th, 2013, 11:55
Interesting to see that the leadership belive that the people think so bad of them so its a risk to have the people staying armed…

I thought the laws in the US was made for just that, to be able to protect yourself if the government turns bad?
Last edited by TopCat; December 31st, 2013 at 07:07.
TopCat is offline

TopCat

Watcher

#254

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 51

Default 

January 2nd, 2014, 19:17
Here are a few fun facts about the state of things in the land of the free.
I would provide sources but honestly i am lazy and its not like any of these things are hidden from the public.

The use of swat teams have increased by 1500% in the past 20 years.
They have also started arming the police with military grade armaments and vehicles to the tune of $500 million a year as well as made preparations for the detention and interrogation of large amounts of Us citizens.
Using "the war or terror" as a false flag in 2011 they quietly passed the NDAA allowing them to indefinetly detain anyone they choose without trial.
All electronic communication by Us citizens (and pretty much everyone else) is monitored, recorded, analyzed and stored.
Somehow i dont think an assault rifle is going to solve anyone's problems.
Biff The Understudy is offline

Biff The Understudy

Watchdog

#255

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 213

Default 

January 2nd, 2014, 19:37
Originally Posted by Biff The Understudy View Post
Somehow i dont think an assault rifle is going to solve anyone's problems.
But is that even the point?

Our constitution singles out the right to bear arms. Period. Citizens have that right and it is enumerated in our fundamental rights in the Constitution. Whether or not they are effective is entirely beside the point.

On the other hand, just as our freedom of speech is not limitless, neither are gun rights. You can't buy a bazooka, RPG, automatic assault weapon, drive a tank, and so on.

The real issue has been where to draw the limits - in other words, since 'life' absolutely trumps freedom of speech, guns, religion, etc … is there a boundary where the threat to life makes it so that limits to gun rights are needed. We as a country have already said 'yes', and now it is about drawing those lines in a society that is increasingly fragmented and drawn to settle disputes through violence.

You note the militarization of our country, and if we think that the 'might = right' mentality has not transferred into the minds of our children, we are naive.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#256

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538

Default 

January 2nd, 2014, 22:29
-Our constitution singles out the right to bear arms. Period. Citizens have that right and it is enumerated in our fundamental rights in the Constitution. Whether or not they are effective is entirely beside the point. -


The point i was trying to make is that compared to all the other things happening with the Us right now the whole gun debate is just plain silly.
Considering the numerous constitutional violations that has occurred under the current regime (by no means the first regime to hold the constitution in outright contempt) i honestly can not fathom how the right to bear arms is the one thing people are going nuts over.
Right this very moment something called the Trans Pacific Partnership and the Trans Atlantic Trade Investment Partnership which is designed to give away national sovereignty to corporations is being pushed through congress.
This is the largest trade deal in history (think nafta x10) and only the president and a few select corporate lobbyist are even allowed full disclosure, not even congress has full access.
This has the potential to destroy what is left of your republic and the country as a whole are bickering about assault rifles and obamacare.
Biff The Understudy is offline

Biff The Understudy

Watchdog

#257

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 213

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 21:24
http://news.yahoo.com/company-makes-…190602440.html

Erie, Colo.-based Magpul Industries Corp. announced Thursday that it was moving its production, distribution and shipping operations to Cheyenne and its headquarters to Texas, making good on a vow it made to leave Colorado during last year's gun control debate.
And before Thrasher fires up his anti-corporate crusade…
Magpul spokesman Duane Liptak said the company plans to move the majority of its workers from Colorado over the next 12 to 16 months. The move involves about 200 jobs, Liptak said.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: Still afraid to hope / / Detroit Red Wings: Another rollercoaster season?
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#258

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,383

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 21:31
Now if they only continue on their trajectory south, they might leave the country. Although, some think Texas is another country.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#259

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,432

Default 

January 7th, 2014, 22:37
Makes perfect sense - if you are running a business you want a location with certainty and the ability toi maximize profit and minimize taxes. Unless you need specific talent or resources that force you to be in a certain location, you can negotiate. And Texas has been 'giving away the store' to businesses for a while at the expense of taxpayers, like many states who try to lure companies only to have the companies suck up the incentives then either move again or just fail to deliver.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#260

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,538
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics, Religion & other Controversies » why anyone wants an "assault rifle"
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 16:09.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch