Quote:
Would you mind posting a picture of the top rifle folded up?
For the best dramatic punch and most realistic use value, I would like to see it in shooter A's hands folded up walking into a store versus shooter B holding a long rifle up to his shoulder or hip. ...I'd like to see a comparison between both guns laying on the back seat of a '65 Impala, and I'd like to see them under a coat on that back seat.
Which one would you think I'd be holding and which one would you rather be up against?
Which one do you think the police want to deal with?
|
The gun I showed in the picture would be obvious even if you did fold it up. It's not a thin gun and the pistol grip wouldn't help anything. In either hypothetical situation it would have to be a trench coat and I would argue that a trench coat could hold either gun, remember the "long rifle" has a shoulder strap which would allow you to hide it while you're wearing your coat. I guess I should apologize for not coming up with twenty different possible situations.
I think you'd rather be holding the AK-ish one because it has a comfortable pistol grip and good stock (supposing you had $3000 to buy a gun to use for illegal purposes). The question of which would I rather be up against question is a hard one. What distance? Close I'd rather go up against the AK-ish one do to smaller bullet size. Long distance I would choose "going up against" the SKS, my chances would be high if you were to "spray and pray." Remember, none of these guns really allow you to spray but I guess that's a minor point. I think the police would like to go up against neither. (I also apologize about going over some of this when someone else has replied to your statements but they seemed addressed to me so I felt complied to supply an answer.)
I hate to point out that your point about the fold able stock doesn't prove a whole lot. Remember the rules, a rifle could contain a fold able stock and not a pistol grip which would make it completely legal.
Quote:
|
Let's also point out that the fact manufacturers figured out how to get really close to that legal line without crossing doesn't impugn the bill.
|
I don't view this as the manufacturers getting really close to the legal line. They are in full compliance with the law, why be upset with them?
If your mother said, you can have candy A or candy B but not both, would she be made at you for taking candy A?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
You can disagree with my statement, I can't convince you about the intent of the bill because your mine appears made up already.
|
I feel that this thread has proved that the banned guns are perfectly logical for legal uses and pose no more threat than guns that are unaffected by the ban.
Quote:
|
They were dealing with a real problem of people shooting larger numbers of people than was the usual case in a more rapid fashion than a typical handgun and sport rifle.
|
Semi-auto is semi-auto. I don't see that any of the above law has anything to do with a gun being "rapid fire."
I thank you for your opposing viewpoint and interest in a open discussion of the issues brought up in this thread.