Originally Posted by Distorted (Post 250668)

.."I need cop-killer bullets on the off chance that I need to kill a cop to protect my basic civil liberties".....

...Interesting to see some of the attitudes expressed by posters here, especially given that throughout the world, 'special services' units of the military are typically the ones tasked with the egregious violation of civil liberties, first against the foreign enemy, then against his 'domestic supporters'.......

Originally Posted by distorted

Just making sure I have this right...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To summarize the argument of the defenders of the people's right (and some would say responsibility) to rebel: "I need cop-killer bullets on the off chance that I need to kill a cop to protect my basic civil liberties".

To summarize the counter-argument of the anti-gunners: "You don't need to worry about such things, officer friendly is at your service, ready to protect you from all enemies foreign and domestic"

This debate is less about guns, and more about the status of the individual as moral authority--do you decide what's right and wrong, or does it come from outside of you, perhaps from the electorate, a book, or some other source?

Interesting to see some of the attitudes expressed by posters here, especially given that throughout the world, 'special services' units of the military are typically the ones tasked with the egregious violation of civil liberties, first against the foreign enemy, then against his 'domestic supporters'...but I'm sure that could never happen here, the USG and most definitely not the fine upstanding men of the special services would never grab an innocent person in the middle of the night, beat the crap out of them, and drag them to a secret prison to be held incommunicado for an indeterminate amount of time.

Edit: for 'cop-killer bullets' I am using the operational definition of 'bullets capable of penetrating standard police-issue body armor'. Here is an article on the term and its origins: link The 5.7mm armor-piercing bullet favored by cartel assasins in Mexico probably qualifies under this term. The .308 'black tip' if indeed able to penetrate military armor would be a 'soldier-killer' bullet. Those advocating for the right to rebel and the disorganized militia would support the widespread proliferation of this bullet, to defend against the possibility of military occupation of the United States correct? Additionally, what about private ownership of SA-2s or Stingers, just in case the occupiers decide to turn the horror of air power against the American people?

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 245355)

I say in the first 100 days.

The big miscalculation is that the margins in some states were significant enough that a 90% flip by angry gun owners could turn the color of the state. That could reverse the coattails that carried a lot of the Dims in close races.

NC, FL, PA, and OH have a LOT of gun owners and hunters, some of who voted for change, and hopefully, they will remember come election time.

TR

Originally Posted by Pete (Post 251899)

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."

I don't see anything in that statement that applies to semi automatic rifles which is what the "Assault Weapon" ban is after.

Libs have to lie - telling the truth shows them for what they are.

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 251926)

Let's use precise terms precisely. Was that SKS capable of fully automatic fire? Unless it was a really neat variant of the standard model, it was a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. We have to resist the temptation to become lazy and let "scare-speak" slip into our common vocabulary.

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 251926)

Let's use precise terms precisely. Was that SKS capable of fully automatic fire? Unless it was a really neat variant of the standard model, it was a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. We have to resist the temptation to become lazy and let "scare-speak" slip into our common vocabulary.

Originally Posted by The Reaper (Post 251929)

Minor point, a Sturmgewehr (or battle rifle) uses a full power rifle cartridge, like the .30-06, 7.62 NATO, 8x57 Mauser, 7.62x54R, etc. The SKS uses an intermediate round, the 7.62x39.

The SKS is technically, merely a semi-automatic rifle, and is not that dfifferent from Bubba's Remington 760 or Browning.

TR

Originally Posted by Razor (Post 251933)

Good point--I sit corrected. ;) What would be the correct term for a semi-auto capable rifle firing 5.56, 7.62x39. 5.45, etc. (besides 'varmint gun' :D)?