And I hope they continue as "every type" of gun manufactured were used in battlefield and thus "military grade".He (they) keep using the term "Military Grade" weapons
It is not ridiculous to many of them, and certainly not impossible, which is why we can never stop fighting the antis. Vote them out folks, get rid of them.towards the more extreme in reaction to his ridiculous and impossible goals.
That's not a good argument. First of all, the 2nd Amendment is precisely about "military grade" weapons. Secondly, just because a rifle is semiautomatic, that doesn't make it markedly less effective than its full-automatic cousin.He (they) keep using the term "Military Grade" weapons, Well I have no full autos, no grenades, no missiles etc etc. I have a rifle that looks like a full auto AR 15 but it's not. A semi Auto is not the same
It is not ridiculous to many of them, and certainly not impossible, which is why we can never stop fighting the antis. Vote them out folks, get rid of them.
It could be argued that the opposite is true. What was formerly seen as "reasonable" (UBC's, even registration and licensing) is now seen as "unreasonable" because the end goal, confiscation, is in the open and undeniable. The antigunners themselves know this and that is why they are so angry at Beto.That doesn't make him irrelevant since driving the "gun control" issue toward the extreme moves the "reasonable gun control" goal post towards the authoritarian ban side.
That's not a good argument. First of all, the 2nd Amendment is precisely about "military grade" weapons. Secondly, just because a rifle is semiautomatic, that doesn't make it markedly less effective than its full-automatic cousin.
I own both semiautomatic AR-15's and full-automatic M16's. I can tell you that if a person had to go into combat, the full-automatic feature would only be a small advantage. In fact, in the hands of a not-well-trained individual, the full-automatic feature would be a disadvantage, because it would waste ammunition.
Talking about "sporting" or "non-military" uses plays right into the hands of the antigunners.
First of all, the 2nd Amendment is precisely about "military grade" weapons.
I don't like that term either. It concedes that "sporting" is a legitimate limitation.OH OK then I guess you have a MSP (modern Sporting rifle)
There's no use fighting the "assault weapon" terminology today. Everybody knows more or less what it means.
I don't like that term either. It concedes that "sporting" is a legitimate limitation.
Originally, "assault rifle" (sturmgewehr) was a WW2 term for a selective-fire weapon firing an intermediate round. It was the U.S. gun industry itself, for marketing purposes, that appropriated this term to apply to various military-look semiautomatic rifles. The antigunners shrewdly jumped on this as a way to demonize these guns. Therefore we have ourselves partially to blame.
There's no use fighting the "assault weapon" terminology today. Everybody knows more or less what it means.
I don't like that term either. It concedes that "sporting" is a legitimate limitation.
Originally, "assault rifle" (sturmgewehr) was a WW2 term for a selective-fire weapon firing an intermediate round. It was the U.S. gun industry itself, for marketing purposes, that appropriated this term to apply to various military-look semiautomatic rifles. The antigunners shrewdly jumped on this as a way to demonize these guns. Therefore we have ourselves partially to blame.
There's no use fighting the "assault weapon" terminology today. Everybody knows more or less what it means.