We don't need to control guns, we need to control our government.

I'm sorry, but I find this an odd argument to make. We have a group of weapons that the manufacturer goes out of their way to make look like military weapons, and you seem to have a problem when Americans call these same weapons "assault weapons". If you wish to split hairs and make this an issue of political correctness, then you are free to do so, but just don't get a hair sideways when people call a spade a spade.

For the sake of this particular discussion, there is a generally accepted practice of calling a semi-auto military copycat an "assault weapon", and a fully auto rifle an "assault rifle". The survey question missed on this small detail and the vast majority of Americans are not aware of the difference, so it's a moot point outside of this small circle here.

Are you really saying that the difference between a religion and terrorists is the same as mislabeling an assault rifle an assault weapon?.....Really?

 

No, actually, I don't care to rephrase the question because that was my entire point, in case you still don't get it, the Government should be restrained by the Constitution, but it isn't. If it was, we wouldn't have unconstitutional laws or practices. But we do.

Are you claiming government never steps outside of the Constitutional limits?

 

Sometimes I wonder, if people like yourself ever leave their house.?

Do you have a clue of the outside world.? ...You anti-gun activist are a laugh.​

 

Changing the phrase, "Butter-knife," to "Assault-Knife" makes a healthy breakfast sound awesome.

I like to call my eggs and toast, "the casualties of quantitative nutrition."

 

All arguments get down to semantics eventually, you are kind of in the wrong place to not like semantics.

You want to use this data, but are unprepared to defend it. Typical and disingenuous as well

Can you please point out where sniper rifles are mentioned?

Can you please tell me the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle?

Here is a Remington 700
Is the Remington 700 a hunting rifle or a sniping rifle?

Original survey” Currently under federal law, very high power, 50-caliber rifles that can penetrate armor
from a mile away are available to people on the same basis as standard hunting rifles Should such very high power rifles be 1) restricted only to the police and military, or 2)
available to civilians like standard hunting rifles as they are at present?.”

It’s extremely ambiguous. Your defense of biased data has no merit.
The main reason semantics are important, if because the people who want to outlaw this: have written the legislation so bad that they have included rifles like this: . The reason they write such bad legislation is because they have no clue what they are talking about. Both pictures are .50 caliber rifles. The whole line about high powered rifles that can penetrate armor at a mile range, has everything to do with the ammo and nothing to do with the rifle. The cartridge is what is armor piercing, if that is so scary to people then make the ammo illegal. The Remington 700 showed above, can fire penetrating ammo, fragmenting ammo, soft tip ammo, and all kinds of cartridges that have multiple purposes, it is not the rifle that is producing the effect of the cartridge and the target.

This rifle: http://ffospace.ff.funpic.de/Images/Weapons/mosin_nagant_mp.jpg is 120 years old it fires armor piercing ammo at ½ mile range, is a military design, and it costs about $100, and there are millions of them out there. Where is the line drawn? What makes this rifle less bad, than one that is expensive, and fires way too expensive ammo, an extra ½ mile?

 

I am saying there is the same difference in calling a semi-automatic sporting rifle an "assault weapon" as it is to call a Muslim a terrorist in my example.

I don't see this discussion going anywhere, "assault weapon" is a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) term designed to demonize a particular group of semi-automatic sporters. You can believe what you wish, but the actual definitions attached to particular firearms trump your opinion of it.

 

well said.

assault weapon is nothing more than propaganda.

 

Once again, to say that it's not a high powered rifle because it happens to shoot a high powered projectile is the very epitome of being disingenuous. Your red herring does not change this.

More semantics? Really??

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this is what they were asking about?

It might appear ambiguous to you because you wish to apply a hyper semantic definition to it. I assure you that most respondents are not so encumbered.

 

Yes, I fully get that. That is why I gave you the opportunity to change your mind on this bad analogy. The chasm between the practice of a religion and the practice of a terrorist is a huge one, while the difference between the description of a semi-auto gun that is designed to look like a military weapon by calling it a "sporting rifle" or an "assault weapon" is merely a personal choice to describe the same object.

You've made a bad analogy.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by that last sentence but we HAVE had this same conversation previously and you have still not recognized the pettiness of your observation on this. The term gained notoriety when Gun Digest first did a book about them, and even Guncite.com doesn't seem to have a problem with the term.

You clearly have a problem with this term, but I can't help you with that. It's an accepted term that is broadly used by gun professionals and novices alike. You might have to just swallow your pride and accept it.

 

But it does sound cooler.

 

what is the difference between a hunting rifle and a sniping rifle?

 

The book "Assault Weapons" includes automatic firearms, knives, and even flashlights. I don't consider the book an authority on the subject.

Its a make believe term used to scare the public into supporting a ban on such firearms. Easier to ban an "assault weapon" than it is a hunting rifle..... which is exactly why the most recent AWB's that have been introduced ban hunting rifles under the guise of calling them "assault weapons".

 

According to the VPC, none. I guess hunting rifles have become too accurate, and are the sniper weapon of choice.

Got to love scare tactics to round up the ignorant.

LOL

 

I know this I just wanted DAnct to think about it.

The Remington 700 from my other post is both used by citizens and the military.

which one of these guys is a sniper?

1.

2.

Which one of these Remington 700 rifles is a sniper rifle?

1.

2.

 

You people have no clue.

An active pro hunter useing a hi-powered caliber in a simple bolt action rifle like the Remington 700 with the proper aligned scope, can hit it's target consistant at up too 300 yards.

A trained military sniper useing a specialty designed firearm and caliber, can hit his target at up too 1000 yards or more consistant.

Game hunters are not snipers.​

 

Those sniper rifles are often tuned "hunting rifles". Its the shooter that makes the sniper rifle.

 

1000 YARD N.B.R.S.A. WORLD RECORDS

HIGHEST SCORE

FIVE SHOT SCORE

BILL NEWCOME

5 SHOTS

50-2X -8/13/2000
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

I know this man personally, I go to his gun range every so often. He used a cheap .308 Savage, and a $100 BSA scope.

The shooter makes the rifle a "sniper" of "hunting" rifle. There is not much a distinction, the VPC simply feels that "hunting rifles" are too accurate, and wishes to label them as "sniper rifles" to gain public support in further restrictions.

 

I am not really trying to argue with you but I think the target makes someone a "sniper". I agree it has nothing to do with the weapon system, though.

sitting still in full camo with a weapons system, waiting for a target for hours could be game hunting, and could be sniping enemy combatants. It is the target that makes the shooter a sniper or not.

you are spot on about the VPC.

technically speaking you could snipe with a shotgun.

what is this guy doing?


My guess is Turkey hunting, but he "looks" like a sniper as well.

 

Besides myself, I know a lot of buddies of mine useing a 22 cailber rifle, can hit a squirrel at 100 yards.

But, I would never call ourselves snipers.

A trained military sniper can hit that same squirrel between the eyes at 100 yards.

 

Oh that wasn't directed towards you, towards dixiehunter.

I agree, the definition is blurred. "Sniper" just instills more fear in the public than a term like "hunter". Which is what the VPC banks on.

 

Yep...
Thats like an ordinary person holding a knife in their hand, and comparing the holding techniqe to that of a butcher.

Which would instill more fear?​

 

agreed.

yeah dixiehunter is the one and only troll...i mean person on my ignore list. reading that person's posts are completely worthless IMHO.

 

You liberals enjoy calling others trolls. Because the truth hurts.
​

 

Just look at the the ones that the Mexicans are buying, no?

 

Wolverine, You are taking unnecessary umbrage to a term that describes a weapon designed to look like a military weapon. "Assault weapon" certainly comes closer than "sporting weapon" to describing this weapon when you take this into account.

I realize that it's easier to look for conspiracies, but I really think you're missing the boat on this one.