Biden as a centrist

[Oerets]

Some will never face the fact a majority of people when assault weapon is mentioned ALL think of the same type of weapon.
So like it or not, no matter the argument in terminology the name has stuck.

Like I stated many times before now. They are just toys for people to play with. They will never be the savior of our republic. Rather a free speech, press and the right to peacefully assemble along with a free and open vote!

The vast amounts of firearms in this country can not keep on growing unchecked. If not addressed soon fear when finally steps are undertaken. They will be of strong reactive in nature, not proactive as they should be.

Should never have the ability to buy and sell a firearm without a background check or records kept. Training, permit and licensing on a national level.


There is a need to be considered just how other countries deal with weapons. Most have seemed to get along just fine with controls on ownership. No outcries for a gun in every hand.

Also consider the fact not only groups of ones persuasion or liking will be in possession of the same firearms. If thinking only the like minded are armed, you would be very wrong!

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I would think it obvious that lots of features, of large and small importance, have been dialed in on the 'assault rifle' type weapon, to optimize it for use in combat with human beings. The result is a weapon much more dangerous to citizens in crowded venues than either a semi-automatic pistol, or a rifle more optimized for long-range shooting. You can peruse the vast literature of the weapons fetishists to find ideas about these clusters of features discussed, tested, and debated ad-nauseum. To argue that the results of all this intensive evolution of design don't exist or don't matter strikes me as peculiar and disingenuous.

The most optimized firearm, according to the US military, is the M4 carbine. You need to be NFA licensed to have one in your personal collection because they have a three-round burst firing mode. The M4A1 is capable of fully automatic fire.

Why do I say it is the "most optimized?" Because despite trying to decades to find a suitable replacement, they haven't come up with anything vastly better to justify the expense of changing it.

It's also interesting to note that the three round burst happened because of pencil pushers at DOD discovering that firing any more than three rounds, the rest often miss their intended target due to muzzle climb. Three round burst (instead of full auto) was primarily added to save money.


The most "dangerous" weapon in "crowded venues" is the machine gun: stationary for support, long barrel for accurate fire, big magazine (preferrably belt fed), and full auto. MG42s and M1919 changed the way wars were waged because they are all these things. Trying to run into the line of fire of these things is a death sentence.

The reason why the Vegas shooter was so effective is because of his bump stock that allowed him to double the rate of fire of his semi-auto at the cost of accuracy/stability. The latter didn't really matter because there were so many people massed at that concert. Bump stocks have been banned in response which was the correct response.


The M4 is "optimized" for killing humans, particularly in short- to mid-range combat. A huge component of that optimization is the fact that it has the three round burst fire mode. No weapons available to civilians have that.

Originally Posted by Oerets

Like I stated many times before now. They are just toys for people to play with. They will never be the savior of our republic.

The framers would strongly disagree if they still lived.

Originally Posted by Oerets

The vast amounts of firearms in this country can not keep on growing unchecked. If not addressed soon fear when finally steps are undertaken. They will be of strong reactive in nature, not proactive as they should be.

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles. --Jeff Cooper

[Pio1980]

One might be curious about the impression an armed open-carry BLM demonstration would play with the 2nd amendment folk.

[Oerets]

There was a march of NFAC last week in Louisville. Looked like over a thousand well armed members dressed in black.
The 3%'rs also were there, about thirty or so. Local PD kept them separated.

Sadly three were injured by a accidental discharging of a NFAC members weapon.


By the way KY is an open carry state.

https://www.wdrb.com/news/update-nfa...0Taylor%20case.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

One might be curious about the impression an armed open-carry BLM demonstration would play with the 2nd amendment folk.

As long as they are behaving responsibly, I don't have a problem with it. Again, the judicial system is set up to reactive, not proactive.

[jmcslob]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

The framers would strongly disagree if they still lived.

I don't know about that.
The whole global flying killer robots thing might have them seeing guns in a different light.

[FordGT90]

That's an entirely different topic worthy of discussion on its own. So far, no robot has been given the ability to pull the trigger of its own decision. It's always a handler doing so. As tech evolves, this will remain an open question about where we draw the line. Some have argued, and I tend to agree, that humans are unwilling to give the ability to fire over to a robot. Besides the moral reasons, there's the liability reason. We're seeing the liability questions rise with Tesla's autopilot and similar systems where using the autonomous driving features have resulted in human deaths. Who is at fault? The driver which didn't intervene to stop the car? The programmer for failing to make the car not see the problem and respond accordingly? The manufacturer of the car for not providing the necessary situational awareness to the software to make a judgement on reaction? The company itself, for expecting the customer to trust the autopilot system except when it results in fatalities? I haven't really looked at those case laws but as autopilot systems get more and more advanced to the point there aren't even steering wheels in cars anymore, this issue becomes much more challenging to address.

[Oerets]

Rise of the machines.....


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidha.../#a5f0d30ece8d

https://mwi.usma.edu/swarms-mass-des...ne-swarms-wmd/

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by jmcslob

I don't know about that.
The whole global flying killer robots thing might have them seeing guns in a different light.

Originally Posted by FordGT90

That's an entirely different topic worthy of discussion on its own. So far, no robot has been given the ability to pull the trigger of its own decision. It's always a handler doing so.

jmcslob your comment flew right over his head.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

One might be curious about the impression an armed open-carry BLM demonstration would play with the 2nd amendment folk.

Local DEFCON 4