I think this question presupposes that a 'government' will always be a single unified front. Quite frankly if a situation arose where the US split, the split would likely include governing entities as well as the military. As is true in modern conflicts, small arms continue to play an important role. If the US went to war with itself as it has done in the past (see Civil War for those unfamiliar with US history) those individuals with small arms would probably stand the same chance that modern soldiers who utilize small arms stand in modern conflicts. Well, probably less of a chance since the training they would likely have received would be less, but probably more of a chance than you question suggests.
OK....You live in Australia. It's not my fault. You go on to make it seem that your oversized island is the next best thing to heaven on earth. Who the crap do you thing your fooling? Australia is the number one country in the world, know for it's pervert lifestyle and corrupt living standards. That dimented socialist goverment has a strig tied on too every citizen....for it's own benifit. Australia has the highest population of gays. Highest volume of aids desease and deaths.(but whos complaining). More and more straight women are leaving Australia and moveing to the USA. To find a real man and raise a family. Sydney is one of the top three largest crime infected cities in the world. Illegal Drug flow in and out of evey port on that island. Mexican cartels own and control every major port in Aussie Land. Years ago in the 60' and 70's Australia was a decent country that had standards. Your lax brain generation has voted the crap politicians into your exsisting present goverment......They took away your big guns. Made you all weak and dependant. Now your all in a hole for a long long lime..... So take your medicine.
Wolverine, we have had this conversation many times before and I suppose that we will never see eye to eye on this topic. In the meantime please allow me to make my argument. Here are what I see to be the major flaws in your reasoning: 1) You blame the "gun control lobby" for calling these guns "assault weapons" when the guns themselves were designed to look exactly like military automatic weapons. I find this an odd argument to make considering the fact that they are being called precisely what they are designed to look like. 2) You spend much time comparing what you describe as the same gun, when one clearly has a detachable magazine where the other does not (among other things). I find it odd that you would be insulted to see that others would not call the first weapon an assault weapon while they would for the second one when one so clearly looks like a military weapon and the other does not. It's as if you're playing some twisted shell game and trying to get us to not believe what our eyes actually see.
I was going to suggest you just ban the offenders instead of yelling at all of us, but I see you (or someone) did ban meat.
Not another "it looks scary" argument. It is what it is. And there is no such thing as an assault rifle. I like the military look, intimidates those pesky squirrels. The bolded type is completely incorrect. Both have detachable magazines.
Well, fortunately Freedom isn't about "need". I'm not planning a war... but I'm capable of waging one if need be.
A possession, no. If someone is stealing a TV or something else inanimate, fine. I have insurance. When it comes to my life or my rights, I have no problem with resorting to force if need be to protect them. If you wouldn't... well, I find that very, very sad.
Actually I do. But then I have an understanding of guerrilla tactics and historical precedent you clearly lack.
You also have a deductible big boy. You would likely have to take the loss on that TV yourself. Given that fact, would you chnage your mind?
Dan, the ruger 10/22 in it's stock un-altered form does infact have a detachable mag. Regardles of it's looks it is still just a .22lr. The collapsable stock makes it easier for shooters of all sizes to shoot, be it the wife, the kids, or a smaller man. The 25rd mag (as opposed to the stock 10rd) makes for less time loading mags and more time punching holes in paper. Dan, If your ever in NY send me an e-mail and I'll show you just how much fun a day at the range can be. (yes, I'm serious)
.... to look like what, assault rifles? Assault rifle is a legitimate term describing a particular type of firearm. "Assault weapon" is not a term used to describe a particular firearm. The definition has moved from AR-15 to M1A. By HR 1022, any semi-automatic with a detachable magazine may be an "assault weapon". They are the same gun Dact, detachable magazine and all. The difference being a different stock and higher capacity magazine. The first rifle does not appear to have a detachable magazine due the fact it is a 10rd. rotary, and fits flush within the magazine well.
This thread is really not for chest beating. No has, is, or going to rebel against the government with sporting rifles. Not one officer was shot during the gun confiscations after Katrina, not during the confiscation, and not while refusing to the return the firearms while they sat in damaging humid storage units. Katrina was the classic gun confiscation scenario played out on gun boards and political forums. Yet gun owners just turned handed them over. You guys should have rebelled about 20 years ago.
I disagree. I believe that both terms are apt for both weapons. You are taking a House Bill's definition. Do you really suppose that this is the ONLY definition? OK, they both have detachable magazines, but they both are NOT the same gun. Now I know that many here will rant about appearances and cosmetics, but the question was as to what an assault weapon is and my response addresses this. I'm not attempting to claim that these guns should be banned or not. ONLY that one should NOT be indignant nor surprised when this weapon is called an assault weapon, when it clearly was designed to look like a military weapon. It just isn't consistent to argue otherwise.
Then you are simply wrong, assault rifle has a definite definition. "Assault weapon" wildly varies. No, because there is more than one. Goes from Street Sweepers to competition rifles (M1A). Same serial number, same gun. Does a different looking stock really make it an "assault weapon"? Thats a bit silly.
except that "assault weapon" is a meaning less term, that describes nothing. I use the definition as per the B.A.T.F. Since they are the authority that would come for you if you break the rules. you can disagree all you want, but you are incorrect.
Yes, it varies, but this doesn't make it any less valid. There are many types and definitions of race cars, and yet they are still a valid type of vehicle. As you know, the differences between your sets of firearms were more than just stock changes. The changes that you showed were clearly designed to make the gun LOOK like a military firearm. Why then, are you surprised when that observation is made? It seems to me like an odd game of the "king's clothes".
You are missing the point. My point is that it is the exact same firearm, despite your original claim that it did not have a detachable magazine, or that it was a different firearm. Exact same one.
No, not "exact same one". The guns have different features and one has a larger capacity magazine, right? Different and the King has no clothes. There,.... I said it. If they were "exactly the same" then there would be no reason to change one into the other, no? The definition of something goes beyond the basic function. It can also incorporate the cosmetics and other things that also affect function. I believe that this is the case here. You wish to ignore something in name because it disturbs you somehow, even though you have changed one firearm into another for the only apparent purpose than to make it look like a military weapon, while denying there was any reason for doing so. I don't find your argument to be consistent.
It is incerdibly silly to say that the very same weapon as a hunting rifle is an "assault rifle" just because a black plastic stock was put on it and a different magazine. But liberals don't need their opinions to make sense, in fact the opposite seems to be true.
