Quote:
Originally posted by ctembreull
Not true. The G11 has been updated several times and was tested as recently as two years ago, according to a brief research run - apparently, it's close to being a candidate for a next-generation assault rifle for the U.S. Army.
|
The next weapon the military will field will be the OICW, which fires 5.56mm ammunition, just like the M-16.
Quote:
There's more than one way to use the law to lessen the number of guns available to criminals. Example: more stringent background checks, with longer waiting periods, and more intelligent recordkeeping (more on the order of state DMVs) will dry up any of the legal channels, and there are other things to deal with the illegal ones. I was reading recently about means of linking biometrics and guns, actually - sounded moderately interesting. Still not ready for prime time, but promising all the same. The point is that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and rejecting ideas simply because they would require some work to implement is nothing short of defeatist.
|
Do you not feel it should be a balanced against the hardship it would cause to legal gun owners?
Quote:
Some states teach driver education in schools, but only at the elective level. If it were handled similarly, I'd favor it. Besides that, focusing education on schools leaves out the huge percentage of the population who are out of school. Hence the need for elective programs for adults. Either way, a certification program and liability insurance should be mandatory, as well as registration (as mentioned earlier). Anything less is simply half-assed.
|
First, no insurance company would touch that. If they did the premiums would be so outrageous that only the wealthy could afford to legaly own firearms. But why would the poor need to defend themselves. Never mind that it would be a de-facto registration of gun owners.
The reason gun safety should be mandatory is that it is the people who wouldn't take it who are the ones who usually accidentaly shoot themselves or others. They either think they know it all already, or they never think about it at all.
Quote:
Reductio ad absurdum? Somewhat silly. I've never yet heard of a gun whose moving parts are wood. But stock and body, that's another issue. Y'know, the way people used to make 'em before polymers, carbonates, and sheet-steel.
|
What does the mterial the stock is made of have anything to do with it at all?
Quote:
According to that law. But according to any objective standard of reality? That's an assault weapon. Any attempt to claim otherwise is purely delusional.
|
As is most gun legistlation passed to date.
Quote:
Do you see now why I'm more content to rely upon my own definition? You know, that definition which you'd spent so long trying to convince me was purely arbitrary in the face of a law which you have now turned around and repudiated.
|
I never said I agreed with the law. I was just trying to show you that if you wanted to arbitrarily toss around a term as loaded as "assault weapon' (no pun intended), that you might want to understand what one is, or at least what the rest of the people involved in this debate (on a national level) consider one to be. You also now know that the definition is completely arbitrary, having nothing to do with the capabilities of the weapon in question.
Quote:
I'd say 40. Life if the victim dies.
|
Why not, but the death penalty if the victim dies.