Rochard didnt insult anyone. He disagreed. The man probably forgot more about guns than most here know.

My comment wasn't directed at Rochard. It's a blanket statement about everyone that is a self proclaimed internet genius that thinks it's fine to be insulting and abrasive and be forgiven for it when it comes time to make money.

Absolutely I'm racist with the exeception of my minority friends, business associates and employees. I forgot my military years. There were a number of minority NCO's and Officers that I would've followed into combat.

I'll make a promise, if he does end world hunger and prevent every disease from happening I will give him a standing ovation. Until then, he's just another arrogant educator with a lot of lofty opinions and no experience at anything beyond being a community organizer and a good reader.

You said it.

Any weapon can kill, but if I am going into combat I don't want a handgun. I want an assault rifle.

I the assault rifle the new boogie man? Perhaps. I'll never forget when I discovered that anyone could buy an AR15. I always thought that was regulated to the military and law enforcement. I grew up with rifles and shotguns; We never gave any thought to assault rifles.

it is true a lot more people get killed from hands guns then assault weapons, people are irresponsible with guns all the time and in many cases kids find loaded weapons and they shoot themself and die. too many irresponsible people with guns, too many people die. all guns should be banned.

Are you kidding me? Yes, I did exactly that. Been doing this for 17 years, not going to change now. I do things my way, not how someone else thinks I should do my business.

Because they aren't that different. I've seen the arguments that .. Oh it's not an assault rifle which is bull shit. It's the same core gun it's just some might be slightly different far as add on or selections of fire.

You know just as well as I do that one doesn't need a 3 round burst fire option or a fully automatic to go on a shooting rampage. The only then you need is ability to hold as much ammo as you can and in most cases single fire semi auto is the best choice because you don't waste a lot of ammo.

Anyone that honestly tries to say a semi auto single fire is not an assault rifle is full of shit. It might not be a military surplus with selective fire but it's good enough.

We fought WW2 with the M1 Grand, a semi auto single fire long rife with a much smaller clip than any of those pictured. :2 cents:

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

I was just asking a question.

easy to tell... by the average person... no. ANyone thats been around either. Absolutely.

http://livelypro.com/basil.png
Basil Walker speaks on Gun Control

I think we all just need to reflect on the word of Basil Walker(.com). The constitution does NOT say that nutcakes can't have guns.

It amazes me how people in this industry dont get the concept of a legal definition.

The difference in legal definition in this industry doesn't result in the loss of lives..

No the parts are NOT "exactly" the same!

The fire control group of the M-16 is entirely different than that of the AR-15, the M-16 receiver has an additional hole for the auto sear, the inside of the AR-15 receiver is narrower than that of an M-16, specifically to prevent the installation of the auto sear and modification of such AR-15 receivers by any other than a licensed manufacturer is highly illegal and subject to severe penalties.

The M-16 bolt group is different than that of an AR-15 although it can be used on an AR-15 but such use will not permit or cause fully automatic fire.

Although the double-hooked M-16 hammer and the M-16 Safe/Fire/Full Auto selector can be installed in an AR-15 receiver, neither of these parts individually or in combination will cause or permit fully automatic fire without additional machining operations on the receiver to permit the installation of the auto sear as has been previously stated. ATF may also consider the installation of such parts into an AR-15 receiver to be the attempted manufacture of an unregistered machine gun and there are very severe penalties involved.

It's like the difference between a 1954 and a 1955 Corvette. The '54 is a six popper and nothing off the line, whereas the '55, which looks exactly like the '54 is a hot rod from Hell with its high performance V-8 engine.

1954 Corvette:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/a.../1954/539e.jpg

1955 Corvette:

http://i872.photobucket.com/albums/a.../1955/8ba9.jpg

You may now go fuck yourself!

:2 cents:

Hence the obvious case for owning one even if it is just to protect your home. You want to know your ass is covered with a weapon that is going to get the job done. If it's good enough for a Marine, it should be good enough for the people the Marines defend. They just need to be properly trained and responsible with them.

That said, I've personally never had more than a shotgun for home protection. But I can see the case for people wanting an assault rifle for home protection if they have experience with guns. If the military wants them to go into combat, then they are clearly an excellent choice of weapon.

You are a smart guy. Alot of this isnt about home protection, its about the great revolution fantasy alot of these people have.
I think they should ban none of it, but the regulations are all too fucking loose for something so powerful.

At the end of the thread it appears that no one thinks that some better controls over a specific group of weapons is a bad thing.

As long as that's all the farther the feds take it.

Regardless of what industry applies, a legal definition is a legal definition, is it not?

It's amusing to see how people seem to disregard it because it isnt convenient to them. Especially the media... and in this thread.