just askin...is this an "assault" rifle??

a reply to: nwtrucker

Calling a rifle an assault weapon based on intent would be like a terrorist using a VW beetle and running into a crowd of people and, therefore labelling the bug an assault bug.

I did not say the "assault rifle" designation was dependent upon the person's intent. I said every firearm is an assault firearm and every weapon is a defensive firearm.

What the person does with it dependent upon their training and intent.

a reply to: edaced4

I believe that is a "ghost" gun. It shoots 50,000 rds per second, and the silencer on the fromt allows killers and terrorists to kill god loving americans from over a mile away.

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: edaced4

I bought one of those the grey model with a larger fake suppressor .22cal. It did look mean, but it was a baby. Gsg5 I think it was.

My .22 is my only rifle. It only looks like a baby when you are behind the stock. Not so much on the other end.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

Nothing but spin. That fact has nothing to do with your post. After all, John Wick used a pencil......

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nwtrucker

Calling a rifle an assault weapon based on intent would be like a terrorist using a VW beetle and running into a crowd of people and, therefore labelling the bug an assault bug.

I did not say the "assault rifle" designation was dependent upon the person's intent. I said every firearm is an assault firearm and every weapon is a defensive firearm.

What the person does with it dependent upon their training and intent.

Bullcrap. Just an attempt to justify the redefinition agenda. Let's see, a suicide rifle....hmmm, an accident rifle....guffaw.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

Nothing but spin. That fact has nothing to do with your post. After all, John Wick used a pencil......

That actually proves my point.

You can use anything you like and still kill a person. It's about their intent and skill.

Ban a firearm, it means nothing to those that have the intent and skill to kill someone else.

Call the pencil an assault pencil, does not matter. Call the VW bug an assault vehicle, does not matter.

Banning of firearms that look scary will do nothing to those that are trained and determined to kill others, when they can pick up a pencil.

Or do you suggest we ban things because you lack the skill and will to comprehend?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

I think you are a little outside your wheelhouse on this one. How about Mr A has the semi auto .22 and Mr B has got a AR 15. Let’s say they are 200 yards apart. Who do you want to be? A or B.

a reply to: edaced4 IMO it can be considered one based on intent. But in a legal factor no it is not. Cool gun though.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

I think you are a little outside your wheelhouse on this one. How about Mr A has the semi auto .22 and Mr B has got a AR 15. Let’s say they are 200 yards apart. Who do you want to be? A or B.

The man better trained to use his firearm and trained in situational awareness.

You guys really think it's all about the bigger tool and not the knowledge to use what you have?

This is the ignorance I see in many pro-firearm people and why they cannot properly defend their 2nd amendment right.

Have you guys even taken a basic defense/shooter course?

a reply to: edaced4

Someone who is a Criminal Justice Major once told me an assault weapon means anything that has more than 10 clips in one magazine.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

I think you are a little outside your wheelhouse on this one. How about Mr A has the semi auto .22 and Mr B has got a AR 15. Let’s say they are 200 yards apart. Who do you want to be? A or B.

who has the scope? Do I get to aim? Or is it a free for all?

a reply to: edaced4

Made it look like the mp5 with a silencer wonder if HK knows? Now is it assault rifle 30 min in my garage it would be. Its very essy to convertto full auto since its based on the ar15.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: edaced4

Every firearm is an "assault" firearm.

Every firearm is a defensive firearm.

It's not the firearm that makes the difference.

It's the training and intent.

Bullcrap

Really?

A well-trained person with a semi-auto 22 can take out a poorly-trained idiot with a fully-auto AR, AK, or whatever you want to choose.

As the saying goes, it's not the size that counts. It's how you use it.

But you would know that, if you were trained and experienced.

Nothing but spin. That fact has nothing to do with your post. After all, John Wick used a pencil......

That actually proves my point.

You can use anything you like and still kill a person. It's about their intent and skill.

Ban a firearm, it means nothing to those that have the intent and skill to kill someone else.

Call the pencil an assault pencil, does not matter. Call the VW bug an assault vehicle, does not matter.

Banning of firearms that look scary will do nothing to those that are trained and determined to kill others, when they can pick up a pencil.

Or do you suggest we ban things because you lack the skill and will to comprehend?

Then why bother with the intent aspect and mess with the definition?? All it does is confuse definition process with those inclined to buy into those redefinitions! Nothing to do with the OP.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: edaced4

Someone who is a Criminal Justice Major once told me an assault weapon means anything that has more than 10 clips in one magazine.

Please tell me this is a funny...

a reply to: edaced4

Well sadly it's no joke and this happened in my college. Then again, there's a lot of SJWs in my college so that may explain why she said it.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Then why bother with the intent aspect and mess with the definition??

Because intent is more important than the tool they use. For #s sake, you can use any tool you want to kill if your intent is to do so. Whether it be a pencil or an AR. We do not need to go after guns, "assault" or not. We need to change the hearts of people and murderous intent.

All it does is confuse definition process with those inclined to buy into those redefinitions! Nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are confused. Read my posts again and see that I am on your side.

The definitions are political and you are playing in to the politics.

My initial point was is this:



The same as this:



Kinda similar...

But one is an MP4 machine gun..,.

a reply to: introvert

If the official story of Timothy McVeigh is true, he once stated he would have used a sniper rifle rather than a bomb. My point is McVeigh would have one way or another, find other weapons to kill. No bans would have deterred him.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: introvert

If the official story of Timothy McVeigh is true, he once stated he would have used a sniper rifle rather than a bomb. My point is McVeigh would have one way or another, find other weapons to kill. He still has that intent to kill.

Exactly.

Where there is a will, there is a way.

The tool of that intent is not the problem. It's the intent and will itself.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nwtrucker

Then why bother with the intent aspect and mess with the definition??

Because intent is more important than the tool they use. For #s sake, you can use any tool you want to kill if your intent is to do so. Whether it be a pencil or an AR. We do not need to go after guns, "assault" or not. We need to change the hearts of people and murderous intent.

All it does is confuse definition process with those inclined to buy into those redefinitions! Nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are confused. Read my posts again and see that I am on your side.

The definitions are political and you are playing in to the politics.

From your last post, I get that perhaps we are on the same side. Yes, intent is a factor. I carry a small/legal knife when I'm trucking. Inside 20 feet....well, at my age, make that 10 feet, the knife is quicker. In my view of it, definition is critical. Understanding words and their meaning is basic. Even, perhaps more basic that the developed skills.

Yes, I was 'qualified'. Not in using every device/object at hand other than the concept of it. The politics of it is important, yes? I'd prefer staying qualified legally rather than not.