Over at New Trajectory, I pointed out that "assault weapons" are functionally equivalent to hunting rifles.
Of course, Baldr replied that they weren't.
I then posted a quite polite post asking him to show exactly how they were not functionally equivalent. That never got published.
Then Jadegold, jumping on my initial post, made a snarky comment.
I repeated my comment that had been eaten.
Again, not published.
I tried one last time with a more extensive comment. We'll see if that gets through. If not, it seems that Reasoned Discourse is definitely in effect.
Update: Apparently third try is the charm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
H: It wasn't a snarky comment. Instead, it's true.
ReplyDeleteCan you use an assault weapon as a hunting rifle? Sure. But it's the same as using a hammer to drive screws.
Stop being an idiot, Jade.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frrsVugFCeQ
a rifle is simply a device for launching a projectile. From the point of view of the hog, it doens't make any difference if it has a wood stock or is black and tactical.
Jade, the qualities that qualified my rifle as an assault weapon under the AWB are purely cosmetic. How does having a folding stock make a rifle less useful for hunting or more useful as an assault weapon? It doesn't. It does allow me to have a stock that fits me - I have short arms and need a shorter length of pull than standard rifles, and even shorter than many youth stock rifles.
ReplyDeleteH: Would you care to tell us what rifle you're talking about?
ReplyDeleteSean: Here's my comment. Immediately respond with name-calling.
Jade, it doesn't matter. Tell me how a folding stock makes a gun less suitable for hunting and more suitable for being an "assault weapon."
ReplyDeleteFor that matter, tell me how having a detachable magazine does the same.
These changes are COSMETIC. They do not affect the sights, accuracy, range, or ballistics of the gun.
@Jade
ReplyDeleteNo problem. You just keep being an idiot, and I'll keep pointing it out.
As an aside, it's really odd for you, a well known interweb troll who has been banned pretty much everywhere, to be complaining about a little well deserved name calling.
The fact that you, a confirmed anti-gunner, object to hunters doing a little Bambi slaying with semi-auto rifle that happens to look all tacticool isn't news. The fact that you are so entirely ignorant on the subject isn't really news either, but it is certainly worth taking note of so we can mock you.
We brought a Ruger 10/22 with folding stock and detachable mag on a hunting trip. The folding stock makes it much easier to stow in a ruck sack or support one handed with sling, leaving another hand free for a walking stick or trekking pole. I see no reason why a larger caliber weapon would be any different.
ReplyDeleteWe also have a firearm with a collapsible stock that allows both Heather and I to use it. It fits people of different statures. I suppose if you don't like the idea of women being able to use their husband's guns, or men not being able to use their wive's guns, then it makes sense to ban this useful feature. The only nefarious use of this feature would be if criminals started using hard plate body armor, because you can also adjust the stock to fit you when you are or are not wearing plates (that's why SWAT teams like them). Doesn't seem to be a big problem, frankly.
Many hunting rifles now come with detachable magazines (like my XBolt). I don't necessarily prefer them to a fixed mag on a hunting rifle but it doesn't bother me either. In fact, it does make the rifle faster and easier to unload, which arguably makes it safer.
All the "assault weapon" features are merely cosmetic. The only thing they have in common is that they look scary. There is zero or near zero impact on functionality.