"no purpose.... for any person to own a dangerous assault weapon" says police chief

[armyman_83]

A man with a gun is a citizen.
A man without a gun is a subject.
--John Lott

 

[manchambo]

The reason I posted the quote and not the article is because this thread is about the quote. As I said, the man violated the law and should be punished, if he really fired a gun out of his sunroof. But that doesn't make the police chief's comment appropriate, and it doesn't justify unconstitutional regulations of firearms.

Whether ownership of the gun is constitutionally protected, the chief's statement was dead-on. Gun's like that are virtually useless for legitimate purposed like hunting.

 

[Protocol11]

Again, I said nothing about crime. I said death. Do you understand the difference. Regardless, isn't eighth on the list "high on the list of countries" like I said?

Everyone has to die. Gun shot wound is as good as any other way.

Why was the 1994 Assault weapons ban law never proven unconstitutional? That was in effect for 10 years! Sorry pal, you got this one wrong.

That was pre Heller and Chicago. It would be smacked down by the courts, assuming such a ban were even politically possible.

Face it, guns are made to kill, and kill they do.

They're designed to shoot small pieces of metal and varying targets. Wood, clay, paper, and animal or the two and four leg varieties.

 

[Ringo84]

Did you watch the video on the first page? It brilliantly makes the point that the term "assault rifle" is completely meaningless by taking the mechanism from a hunting rifle out and putting it in a different shell. He did this in about a minute with two screwdrivers. The term assault rifle is basically meaningless and serves no purpose other than to inject further emotionalism into an already difficult to discuss rationally subject.

I'm not speaking specifically about assault rifles but more in general about military-grade weaponry.
Ringo

 

[BoltNut]

Whether ownership of the gun is constitutionally protected, the chief's statement was dead-on. Gun's like that are virtually useless for legitimate purposed like hunting.

So protecting yourself and your family is not a 'legitimate purpose'? The Police Chief's statement was Political Pablum.

 

[Wolseley]

Whether ownership of the gun is constitutionally protected, the chief's statement was dead-on. Gun's like that are virtually useless for legitimate purposed like hunting.

So, if you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to hunt to survive, and all you had was a "military-style assualt rifle", you'd throw it away and revert to bashing frogs over the head with rocks?

Interesting.

 

[chaz345]

Whether ownership of the gun is constitutionally protected, the chief's statement was dead-on. Gun's like that are virtually useless for legitimate purposed like hunting.

Guns like that are virtually functionally identical to hunting rifles. Go watch the video on the first page. The guy in the video turns a hunting rifle into an "assault weapon" in about a minute with two screwdrivers and a new stock.

 

[chaz345]

I'm not speaking specifically about assault rifles but more in general about military-grade weaponry.
Ringo

Military grade weaponry such as full auto rifles and heavier stuff like bazookas are already banned and most pro-gun folks are fine with that.

 

[chaz345]

So, if you were stranded in the wilderness and needed to hunt to survive, and all you had was a "military-style assualt rifle", you'd throw it away and revert to bashing frogs over the head with rocks?

Interesting.

The point is that most military style assault rifles ARE hunting rifles with different "body panels" on them. Full auto excepted of course.

The degree of functional difference is the same as the difference between say an old Ford Tempo and a Mercury Topaz, that is zero.

"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term that serves no purpose other than to inject needless emotionalism into the debate.

Then of course there's the argument that if one is frog hunting, a stick is a better choice of weapon if the goal is having anything left to eat.

 

[Wolseley]

The point is that most military style assault rifles ARE hunting rifles with different "body panels" on them. Full auto excepted of course.

The degree of functional difference is the same as the difference between say an old Ford Tempo and a Mercury Topaz, that is zero.

"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term that serves no purpose other than to inject needless emotionalism into the debate.

You and I know all that, but they don't----either through ignorance or design.

Then of course there's the argument that if one is frog hunting, a stick is a better choice of weapon if the goal is having anything left to eat.

Depends on whether you wants steaks or stew.

 

[Schneiderman]

Whether ownership of the gun is constitutionally protected, the chief's statement was dead-on. Gun's like that are virtually useless for legitimate purposed like hunting.

Why? Sounds to me like you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So protecting yourself and your family is not a 'legitimate purpose'? The Police Chief's statement was Political Pablum.

Such weapons are far too large and unweildy for personal protection or home defense... particularly in Hoboken.

 

[armyman_83]

Such weapons are far too large and unweildy for personal protection or home defense... particularly in Hoboken.

And you can judge how unweildy a rifle is for someone else? Maybe you want just a simple handgun, but a high powered rifle is also a legitimate weapon for home defense. Rifles, Carbines, Shotguns--All home-defense weapons.

High-powered rifles are the bulwark of Americans' rights. Why? Because the next revolution won't be fought with muskets.

 

[Schneiderman]

Such weapons are far too large and unweildy for personal protection or home defense... particularly in Hoboken.

Here's another one who doesn't know what they are talking about...

What weapons does the military use when they are clearing a house? Do you think they put down their rifles and take out pistols? What makes you think a rifle can not be used for self defense/defense in the home, when so many people own rifles configured for that very purpose?

In NY it is more difficult because our idiot lawmakers outlawed folding and collapsible stocks for no reason, so that does have an impact on finding a rifle suitable for the task. Barrels under 16" are also arbitrarily and unconstitutionally regulated by the ATF and I can not own one in NY, so that makes it even more needlessly complicated. But my saiga (pictured below, again) is a very handy size for use inside a building. The stock, being designed in Russia for use by smaller sized people who would often be wearing heavy clothing due to cold, is very short, and coincidentally this makes it perfect for CQB and modern tactical rifle technique (as opposed to traditional "American style" technique where a longer stock and length of pull are desired).

Oh by the way when my rifle was imported, it was in a hunting configuration (just wanted to point that out to manchambo).

 

[leftjohn]

Just how big a hole do you need to blow in a person?

 

[Schneiderman]

Just how big a hole do you need to blow in a person?

What does that have to do with anything? It's not about how big a hole is made, it's how fast a threat can be stopped (if we are talking about use of a firearm for self defense, which is not the only legitimate use of a firearm... otherwise the question is often how many bullets you can put in the same hole at a given distance, or how effective is your rifle and ammo choice at humanely killing game).

One of the most popular choices for home defense is a 12 gauge shotgun. A 12 gauge shotgun will put a very nasty hole in somebody- way more nasty than my saiga. But nobody cares about that. What they care about is how quickly a shotgun will stop a threat, and the answer is very quickly.

My saiga would actually not make a very big hole, but it would stop a threat quickly.

Would you rather people be limited to trying to defend themselves with a .22?

Eh, if the .22 won't kill them, just aim for the eyes and try to blind them so they can't see you, then run away.

What does it matter how big a hole it makes?

 

[Schneiderman]

I just bought one of these (picking it up Monday). It would "make a bigger hole" than my saiga. But if I had to defend my home which rifle do you think I would pick up, the saiga or this Mosin Nagant? If it's all about making a bigger hole I should grab the mosin, right?

 

[leftjohn]

My point was, why do we need these huge assault rifles when most any gun will do the job.

Maybe you do need a little more than a .22, but do you really need something that can kill someone 3 miles away? Does the home you are protecting have a 3 mile wide living room?

 

[Schneiderman]

I would love to see you hit a man size target 3 miles away with an AK-47 pattern rifle.

Why should I not use a firearm capable of hitting targets to 400 yards (a more accurate approximation of the capabilities of my saiga)? Do you know where I live? My house is surrounded by fields that, in one direction, extend for a half mile to the road, and woods on one side that extend for a half mile, then more fields beyond them.

But I'm not saying that I expect to be assaulted by a platoon of criminals who want to capture my house. I am just pointing out that not everyone lives in an apartment or in a crowded housing development. The main thing that I want to point out is that my rifle may be capable of hitting targets to 400 yards... but that does not detract from its ability to hit a target within my house if the need arose.

What does it matter if my rifle can fire a round farther than a pistol or shotgun can? It's irrelevant.

 

[Schneiderman]

My point was, why do we need these huge assault rifles when most any gun will do the job.

I don't own an assault rifle. Assault rifles are regulated so strictly such that they are nearly unavailable to the common man, and they are flat out illegal for a civilian to own in New York.

And there is no "any gun" that will do "the job" for every particular person who wants a gun for a particular purpose.