Posted on 02/20/2007 11:04:03 AM PST by holymoly
I don't have much respect for a hunter who uses an assault weapon to kill an animal.
Hunting should not be easy, but be about skill and challenge.
Killing with an assault weapon seems to frankly be slaughter, in my opinion.
Hunt with a bow or traditional weapon and I respect hunting.
But, should assault weapons be banned? No, for once we do that, where does it stop? The Second Amendment includes all arms.
An F15 is not an arm, you moron.
Guns ONLY are covered by the Second Amendment, NOT MISSLES, NOT PLANES, NOT TANKS, NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NOT BAZOOKAS.
All those weapons are NOT something the Second Amendment allows people to personally own.
Arms means a gun. That is what the founding fathers had, and I somehow doubt they envisioned us all with missles.
Shove it.
That is what the founding fathers had, and I somehow doubt they envisioned us all with missles.
The cannon, representing the most lethal firepower of the day, was the missile of the day.
Towns even pooled their resources to buy them.
First of all, "assault weapon" is a propaganda term, favored by the Brady Campaign, etc.
With that being said, I'd like you to explain to me just exactly how using a semi-automatic rifle makes hunting "easy".
Killing with an assault weapon seems to frankly be slaughter, in my opinion.
Please explain to me why a .30-06 fired from a bolt-action is "OK", while the same cartridge fired from the M1 Garand is "slaughther",
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". Its a fake term made up by gun grabbers. You're getting confused with an "assault rifle", which is a select fire (i.e. full auto and semi auto) smaller caliber rifle. The term is derived from Sturmgewehr (German for assault or storm rifle), which was the STG44 designed by the Germans at the end of WWII.
Get your facts straight before you spout off Brady style gibberish.
Certainly there is, derived from the literal translation of the German term sturmgeschütz! But it's not a man-portable small arm. Example:
German medium assault gun is a thick-barreled 105-mm. gun mount on the chassis of the PzKw III tank. This weapon looks almost exactly like the 75-mm. Sturmgeschütz
Your private definition of a word does not amend the Constitution. If it did then we would have no guns already, or anything like free speech.
''Killing with an assault weapon seems to frankly be slaughter, in my opinion. ''
What's the difference between shooting a deer with a 308 bolt action rifle or a 308 Springfield Armory Socom with a 5 round huning magazine?
Regardless, Panzers are definitely not what the gun grabbers have in mind when they say assault weapons. Calling an SKS or a SPAS an assault weapon is ridiculous.
You're quick to throw your opinions around and slow to defend them when challenged. What gives?
Dear Rep. McCarthy;
The Second Amendment has no clause stipulating the need for any reason for owning any type of firearm that We The People damned well please.
Please feel free to p!$$ right off.
I've asked him virtually the same thing, and he won't give me an answer.
I'd really like to get his response to this Brady Campaign blog posting:
The tragic proliferation of Sniper Rifles
Not only do they want to ban "sniper" rifles, but also:
..."sniper" cartridges, and "sniper" ammunition...scopes of excessive magnification, super magnum and high velocity ammunition, and military slings...They have no place in the hunting fields of America and hunting usage should not be used as an argument for civilians to own such firearms and weapons.
If he, and "hunters" like him, think their "sporting/hunting/deer" rifles are safe, they are sadly mistaken.
I don't support private ownership of nuclear or biological weapons and do not think they should be included as arms in the 2nd amendment, whereas tanks, shoulder launched missiles, grenades, and mortars very well could.
I'm not too sure about fighters. Even if a private citizen could own one, at tens of millions of dollars per plane, few could afford to buy one, much less get the training, ground support and maintenance that you would need to keep it operational. Defense contractors probably have some sort of clause in their contract which forbids them to sell to anyone not authorized by the Pentagon. Needless to say we probably would not qualify under their requirements.
Very well stated.
Regardless, Panzers are definitely not what the gun grabbers have in mind when they say assault weapons. Calling an SKS or a SPAS an assault weapon is ridiculous.
Even GoogleTranslate lists *howitzer* as haubitze
The sturmgeschütz was something more, half-indirect artillery, but also very capable of Infantry support with direct fire- and not bad as an antitank *ambush Panzer* to boot. Just as the wheeled Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun proved to also be useful as a long-range artillery piece AND as a direct-fire weapon, so too did the various models of sturmgeschützen proove so useful and common that the abbreviation StuG came into use to designate different models.
Neither were they exclusively German: the Russians quickly copied, and the US even tinkered with a couple of designs.
So far as employment goes, the Germans used them on every front, and the Finnish use of German-built StuG IIIs proved particularly effective. If now mostly remembered by a few technical historians and old veterans, the Finnish sturmis have earned at least a little limelight, in both English and Finnish, if not their native language.
But I am amused by the idea that those flunkies coming to attempt to enforce a Nazi-inspired law expecting to find a tired old Chinese SKS might instead find something else awaiting them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
