You can't hunt with a 30 round mag already, at least not where I live. The game warden would be all over you. So that's kinda a moot point. They make flush fitting 5 round mags for my M1A. Put one in, and to the uninformed it doesn't even look like a semi-auto. And no, I don't yet own a bolt action rifle. I'd have to spend a good amount of money on one for it to match the National Match M1A's accuracy and my budget is currently hurting.
You still haven't answered the question of exactly what you think constitutes an "assault weapon". Seems I was the first person in the comments to offer up any definition, but maybe you have a definition that's different from the idiots over at the VPC (i.e. a definition that doesn't include the M1 Garand and M1911). Again, where does it say in the Constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but only if the Brady Campaign thinks they're for hunting"?
Seriously, this is on par with the neo-prohibitionists saying we should ban all liqueur that's over 20% alcohol by content. Only problem with that comparison is that the alcohol over 20% ban would actually make more sense, seeing as how alcohol isn't mentioned in the first ten amendments and way, way more people are killed by drunk driving than by rifles (something like 13,000 to 15,000 a year compared to 400 to 600).
So again, what exactly are "assault weapons" and where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "only if the game warden will let you hunt with it"?
There's more to rifles than hunting my friend. Some of us also enjoy target shooting, among other things. Did a timed practical shooting competition one time, came in almost dead last but had fun.
And yes, I draw a line in the sand here. If someone said "I support the 1st Amendment, but I don't think it applies to Internet forums. Those weren't conceived of in the 1780s" you'd look at them like they were nuts. Would you compromise with them? What if they supported the 4th Amendment, but thought that it didn't apply to wiretaps since phones weren't conceived of in the 1780s? Would you compromise with someone who was trying to nibble away at your 4th Amendment rights? How about the 3rd? We don't really need that one anymore, it's outdated, right?
Submitted by Rich (not verified) on January 31, 2010 - 8:44pm.
You can't hunt with a 30 round mag already, at least not where I live. The game warden would be all over you. So that's kinda a moot point. They make flush fitting 5 round mags for my M1A. Put one in, and to the uninformed it doesn't even look like a semi-auto. And no, I don't yet own a bolt action rifle. I'd have to spend a good amount of money on one for it to match the National Match M1A's accuracy and my budget is currently hurting.
You still haven't answered the question of exactly what you think constitutes an "assault weapon". Seems I was the first person in the comments to offer up any definition, but maybe you have a definition that's different from the idiots over at the VPC (i.e. a definition that doesn't include the M1 Garand and M1911). Again, where does it say in the Constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but only if the Brady Campaign thinks they're for hunting"?
Seriously, this is on par with the neo-prohibitionists saying we should ban all liqueur that's over 20% alcohol by content. Only problem with that comparison is that the alcohol over 20% ban would actually make more sense, seeing as how alcohol isn't mentioned in the first ten amendments and way, way more people are killed by drunk driving than by rifles (something like 13,000 to 15,000 a year compared to 400 to 600).
In 2008, 375 people were murdered with a rifle of any type: bolt action, pump, muzzle loader, lever, semi-auto, evil black rifles, anything. Source: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrta...
So again, what exactly are "assault weapons" and where in the 2nd Amendment does it say "only if the game warden will let you hunt with it"?
There's more to rifles than hunting my friend. Some of us also enjoy target shooting, among other things. Did a timed practical shooting competition one time, came in almost dead last but had fun.
And yes, I draw a line in the sand here. If someone said "I support the 1st Amendment, but I don't think it applies to Internet forums. Those weren't conceived of in the 1780s" you'd look at them like they were nuts. Would you compromise with them? What if they supported the 4th Amendment, but thought that it didn't apply to wiretaps since phones weren't conceived of in the 1780s? Would you compromise with someone who was trying to nibble away at your 4th Amendment rights? How about the 3rd? We don't really need that one anymore, it's outdated, right?