Was never a fan of the AR-xx. I want a pre-64 Winchester M-70. 
I must tell you, I am thoroughly enjoying the civics lesson on civilization and what we must do from a foreigner. I do so enjoy it every time one deigns to tell us what we’re doing wrong.
I hear Mexico has great gun control laws. They’d be the envy of most every European nation. Really strict! Gun-grabbing liberals would love them! And who can argue with the results?
Which is dodging the point again. Firearms are not designed for target shooting. They are designed to kill things. It’s as absurd as saying a bow isn’t a weapon because it can be used to hunt or that a spear isn’t a weapon because it can be used to hunt or that a javelin isn’t a weapon because it is only used for Olympic sports in the modern age. They are all weapons, and they are all designed to kill things. Because you choose to make the word “weapon” mean something in your own head other than what it actually means is the epitome of Humpty-Dumpty and glory:
I’m sorry, it’s a total dodge. As I said, there’s glory for you. I can say for as long as I live that hunters carry glory and soldiers carry weapons. That doesn’t make it true.
There are forearms designed purely for target shooting and, though not impossible, are impractical as weapons. That’s a valid point.
If you’re not Canadian, you’re uncivilized. There’s no way around it.
I’m not sure if the Second Amendment applies to cyborgs.
It’s not a valid point. smiling bandit is saying firearms are not weapons. There’s a couple of easy ways to find out if this is the case: one is for you to walk into a bank with a shotgun and try explaining that since you use it for hunting it’s a firearm and therefore not a weapon and see how far that gets you. The other is for you to shoot at someone with a target pistol and try defending yourself against the charge of assault with a deadly weapon by insisting that your target pistol isn’t a weapon, thus it is improper to be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Seeing as Bricker is in this thread perhaps we should ask him how far that will fly as a legal defense.
That’s wrong of course. A pure hunter or target shooter can even agree to have his “weapon” stored at the range or the police armory. Or even just the bolt in the case of bolt rifles.
And as rejoinder to your two impractical scenarios, a dolt creeping around the target range (down range that is) is shot by me, intentionally. I doubt if I’ll be in greater trouble beyond having to sit out several days of questioning by an understanding policeman.
I shot a javalina with one. I’m building another specific for prairie dogs.
I heard the guy used Joe Biden’s favorite gun. Irony, got to love it.
I assure you, my Krieghoff K80 Pro Sporter is not designed to kill either people or animals.
Is this meant to be irony? I honestly can’t tell sometimes in online discussions, so it’s better to ask than assume, I think.
This seems like a really terrible way of defining “weapon”. If you hit someone with a brick, or clobber them with a pipe wrench, you’ll also be charged with “assault with a deadly weapon” / aggravated assault / something like that. That doesn’t mean that most of us would label a brick or a pipe wrench a “weapon”.
Here’s “the most trusted name in news” claiming that Alexis (Navy Yard shooter) “legally purchased AR15 Shotgun”: .jpg :rolleyes:
You’d have to remove the word “AR15” for that to be true, but then it wouldn’t fit CNN’s agenda.
They’re not impractical, try doing either one of them and using your defense against criminal charges that you were using a firearm, which is not a weapon. And if you think intentionally shooting someone at a firing range with the defense of “they were a dolt and where they weren’t supposed to be” is going to protect you from murder charges, you’ve got another thing coming. Try intentionally running over a pedestrian who is jaywalking in your car and telling the police officer you didn’t do anything wrong, they were jaywalking so you were allowed to run them over.
You’ve got this backwards. It’s not my contention that that a brick or wrench is always a weapon because it can potentially be used as a weapon. It’s smiling bandit’s contention that firearms and weapons are different things; a firearm isn’t a weapon unless a policeman or soldier picks it up, at which point it magically ceases to be a firearm and is now a weapon.
I’d call it sarcasm, and I agree with the point being made.
Careful there… most “hunting” rifles are basically Mauser-pattern bolt action rifles, which were designed about 115 years ago more or less as military rifles, not hunting rifles.
I think you’d be hard pressed to look through history and find ANY rifle that was specifically designed for hunting that’s not a pretty close derivative of a rifle originally designed for military service, back to and including muzzle loaders of all sorts.
Shotguns were likely developed specifically for bird hunting and were back-adapted for military use however.
You have half-missed the point, and snide attitude has caused you to sneer at the exceedingly important other half of the point.
The gun does nothing. It’s a piece of metal or wood (well, several pieces). What the thing is, is a matter of choice - human agency, in nice neat philosophical terms. TO a sportsman, the gun is a tool of practice and skill. Toa a historian or collector, the gun may have emotional or intellectual significance. To a hunter, it’s a critical aspect of an ancient ritual even though the implement itself is new. And it becomes a weapon precisely when and where it is picked up by someone with the intent of bringing death and destruction to other human beings. On its own, the gun is nothing of great importance. Only a man makes it good or bad.
If you think this silly, then I could, perhaps, explain why my father drilled this into people (and he did not hesitate to correct police or whomever came his way). Everyone who left his class knew how and when to handle a gun, and had an appropriate level of psychological readiness when they did carry a firearm. The words were chosen carefully.
*Firearm is a neutral term, even dispassionate. It is descriptive and nothing more. Hence using the term firearm reinforced logical respect for the tool as such.
*Weapon is not a neutral term. Even if the two words had identical denotation (they don’t), the connotation is very different.
I.E., the point was to strip away emotion, ego, and fear and encourage people to pay attention to what they were doing. Safety can’t just be rules; it must become habit.
Well, ACAB and all, but I don’t think there’s a permit for shooting the po-po, even in France :). Feral po-po might be OK, I’ll check with the groundskeeper.
Cool story, bro.
To draw a distinction between the word weapon and firearm as if one is not a subset of the other is a ridiculously pedantic hijack. If that’s how you choose to use those words then fine - but don’t expect to bend the world to your non-standard use of ordinary well established words.