Page 1 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

17 Apr 2018, 7:13 am

Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given between weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.


A single action rifle?
That's a new one on me.


As in Bolt Action, Lever Action, Pump Action, or even Break ( last 2 more common with shotguns).

With handguns, Revolvers could be Single-Action or Double-Action. Pistols obviously being Semi-Auto.

In a guerrilla war scenario, it seems like a lot of reliance would be on Snipers where I don't think having Semi-Auto is a major factor. I'm not sure how far a group of people would get engaging professional soldiers with their "Assault" rifles.

Or in close quarters, a Single-Action or Break-Action Double Barrel Shotgun could still do a lot or be concealed if sawed off.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Apr 2018, 12:47 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given between weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.


A single action rifle?
That's a new one on me.


As in Bolt Action, Lever Action, Pump Action, or even Break ( last 2 more common with shotguns).

With handguns, Revolvers could be Single-Action or Double-Action. Pistols obviously being Semi-Auto.

A single action can only be a single action revolver like those modeled after the single action 1873 Colt or a single action semi-auto like a Colt 1911 or Browning P-35. It doesnt apply to rifles or shotguns.

Quote:
In a guerrilla war scenario, it seems like a lot of reliance would be on Snipers where I don't think having Semi-Auto is a major factor. I'm not sure how far a group of people would get engaging professional soldiers with their "Assault" rifles.

Guerrilla warfare is about fighting dirty. You don't directly engage the enemy, you rely on hit and run ambushes and raids, booby traps, IED's, and yes, long range rifle work, etc... When the opportunity presents itself you "liberate" enemy weapons and supplies, too.[/quote]

I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but if it's trying to convince us that we don't need "assault rifles" because in your opinion they are useless as militia weapons you would be wrong. Even if you're not wrong I'm still keeping mine, anyway.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

18 Apr 2018, 1:09 pm

Maybe I'm doubtful about civilians engaging professional soldiers making a lot noise with assault weapons against an enemy who can radio for aid if necessary which means armored vehicles can show up or explosives come into play. I understand this would be hit and run ideally, but pushing for Assault Rifles seems like pushing for sustained fire.

Also, maybe I'm fishing for a compromise because Assault Weapons are becoming an issue with mass shooters. Even aside from looks, I wonder if civilians really have a need for rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines.

You're right though, I misused the term Single-Action.



BaronHarkonnen85
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 297
Location: Tennessee

19 Apr 2018, 10:55 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

So for it to be a legitimate assault rifle, it has to have selective firing capacity that allows for a fully auto shooting? Therefore a semi-auto would not count as being an assault rifle?


Correct.


_________________
--Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
The "Enlightenment" was the work of Satan


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Apr 2018, 1:36 pm

BaronHarkonnen85 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:

So for it to be a legitimate assault rifle, it has to have selective firing capacity that allows for a fully auto shooting? Therefore a semi-auto would not count as being an assault rifle?


Correct.


It's been explained to them many many times but they tend to forget...


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Last edited by Raptor on 19 Apr 2018, 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Apr 2018, 1:47 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Maybe I'm doubtful about civilians engaging professional soldiers making a lot noise with assault weapons against an enemy who can radio for aid if necessary which means armored vehicles can show up or explosives come into play. I understand this would be hit and run ideally, but pushing for Assault Rifles seems like pushing for sustained fire.

Even a real assault rifle (one with selective fire capability and not one that just looks scary) is not a sustained fire weapon. Yeah, the details count.

Quote:
Also, maybe I'm fishing for a compromise because Assault Weapons are becoming an issue with mass shooters. Even aside from looks, I wonder if civilians really have a need for rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines.

Your anti-gun politicians and the liberal media are responsible for their proliferation in more recent years by very loudly advertising their availability to everyone and their sister. The AR-15 has been available to citizens since 1964 but the manufacturers, with rare exceptions, have only advertised them and others like them in gun magazines (e.i. to those who were already gun owners).


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

19 Apr 2018, 5:11 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I don't know exactly,

But I was hearing a lot of 'its a false term' so if it is a made-up false term, than how is it that it would have an actual definition?

Meh I would say military grade semi and fully automatic weapons, are not something that just anyone should be able to go buy. I say either join the military, or perhaps there could be a system for civilians to take proper training and be able to get a licence to shoot them. I don't 'not believe in the second amendment' I just don't believe it says 'every civilian is entitled to have whatever kind of gun they want, bring it wherever they want and the government is barred from making any regulations whatsoever regarding guns'

I mean I would really like to find a little middle ground on this issue from the different sides, but its really hard when so much as supporting better regulations, not even a gun ban gets you branded a second amendment hater.

I mean do you really think just anyone should be able to go buy any gun regardless of how powerful or destructive it is with no regulations?



There’s no agreed definition. What California defines as An asault weapon is different then what New York does or what ploticians in congress. California has two rival definitions competing at one point. Basically it’s whatever anti gun person decides it is.
Which is usually 90% of guns including most handguns, rifles and shotguns.

Do you know what military grade is? It’s the bare min specification that can be met for as cheap as possible. It’s quality standard not firepower standard. Usually means rougher and can stand rough conditions, again made as cheap as possible. Quite a few military grade stuff sucks. But hey they saved some mone, what’s a soldiers life worthy anyways. :roll:

Full auto guns are already banned. We have in and “compromised” one what your side claimed was middle ground and common sense. Here we are yet again and you moved the starting point yet again.there is no middle ground on a constantly moving starting point. No simi auto guns should be legal for any one who can own guns. I have a right to defense of my life. Infringement has a definition. What’s shall not be infringed mean to you? Should you need a license to use your other rights? Where’s the protest license? Free speech license? License to not self incrimination, license to not be searched without a warrant. Military wants to use your home for operation training, sorry you didn’t the license for the right to not have troops garrison in your home. You need a privacy license, fill out form 1049 b and take it to the bill of rights department and wait hour s in line to get form 1050 a. Then mail that form to the government and they’ll get back to you in a few years if you qualify to have rights determined by whatever party is in power at the time. In mean time you have no rights as you don’t have any licenses, so no due process for you, no trial for you, you just be thrown in prison with no visitation for using a federally illegal substance.

No rights can’t require a license that’s a clear infringement. As Hillary said any right you need to ask permission for isn’t a right at all.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

19 Apr 2018, 5:18 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Would non-assault weapons be completely ineffective in a Red Dawn scenario if using guerrilla war tactics probably using snipers? Could people still accomplish some resistance even with Pump Action Shotguns, Scoped Rifles, or Revolvers?

Or if they have some successes, just seize enemy weapons if they're not simply given between weapons by the government because of the impending invasion.

I think it's also worth considering that a gun culture relying more single action scoped rifles lead to a militia with better marksman and more intimidating and frustrating for the enemy.


A single action rifle?
That's a new one on me.


As in Bolt Action, Lever Action, Pump Action, or even Break ( last 2 more common with shotguns).

With handguns, Revolvers could be Single-Action or Double-Action. Pistols obviously being Semi-Auto.


In a guerrilla war scenario, it seems like a lot of reliance would be on Snipers where I don't think having Semi-Auto is a major factor. I'm not sure how far a group of people would get engaging professional soldiers with their "Assault" rifles.

Or in close quarters, a Single-Action or Break-Action Double Barrel Shotgun could still do a lot or be concealed if sawed off.


Those are manually operated firearms.
Single action means it causes the slide or cylinder to cycle or rotate. Double action guns can do so without the first round being chamber or hammer pulled back. Thus preforming two actions.

A lot will be close ambushes. And most people use simi auto long guns for s pier rifles todsy.
Look simi autos are modern guns and been around for a really long time. Should we only be allowed paper and pencil ?



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

19 Apr 2018, 5:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Maybe I'm doubtful about civilians engaging professional soldiers making a lot noise with assault weapons against an enemy who can radio for aid if necessary which means armored vehicles can show up or explosives come into play. I understand this would be hit and run ideally, but pushing for Assault Rifles seems like pushing for sustained fire.

Even a real assault rifle (one with selective fire capability and not one that just looks scary) is not a sustained fire weapon. Yeah, the details count.

Quote:
Also, maybe I'm fishing for a compromise because Assault Weapons are becoming an issue with mass shooters. Even aside from looks, I wonder if civilians really have a need for rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines.

Your anti-gun politicians and the liberal media are responsible for their proliferation in more recent years by very loudly advertising their availability to everyone and their sister. The AR-15 has been available to citizens since 1964 but the manufacturers, with rare exceptions, have only advertised them and others like them in gun magazines (e.i. to those who were already gun owners).



Most mass shooters use a handgun or shotgun. Less then half are with the scary ar15.
But the media like yiu said wants to ban it, so they protray it falsely as the most evil rifle that’s on,y purpose is killing lots of people and can kill hundreds in one 30roind mag. They go on and on about it, so yeah they go and use it. If they went on and on about how horrible say a bolt action gun is, they shooters would use it.
Also a lot of mass shootings use the 10 rd mags they claim would prevent mass shootings.

Many of the politicians when asked say non of the laws not a single one would stop any of the pass shootings or future shootings. They admit the laws they want won’t save a single gosh dang person. So why do they want it? What’s their real reason?

It’s like going in to the hospital for feeling sick and they remove one of your lungs. There’s no connection why did they remove your lung how does that help your cold?



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

19 Apr 2018, 6:45 pm

sly279 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
VIDEODROME wrote:
Maybe I'm doubtful about civilians engaging professional soldiers making a lot noise with assault weapons against an enemy who can radio for aid if necessary which means armored vehicles can show up or explosives come into play. I understand this would be hit and run ideally, but pushing for Assault Rifles seems like pushing for sustained fire.

Even a real assault rifle (one with selective fire capability and not one that just looks scary) is not a sustained fire weapon. Yeah, the details count.

Quote:
Also, maybe I'm fishing for a compromise because Assault Weapons are becoming an issue with mass shooters. Even aside from looks, I wonder if civilians really have a need for rapid fire guns with high capacity magazines.

Your anti-gun politicians and the liberal media are responsible for their proliferation in more recent years by very loudly advertising their availability to everyone and their sister. The AR-15 has been available to citizens since 1964 but the manufacturers, with rare exceptions, have only advertised them and others like them in gun magazines (e.i. to those who were already gun owners).



Most mass shooters use a handgun or shotgun. Less then half are with the scary ar15.
But the media like yiu said wants to ban it, so they protray it falsely as the most evil rifle that’s on,y purpose is killing lots of people and can kill hundreds in one 30roind mag. They go on and on about it, so yeah they go and use it. If they went on and on about how horrible say a bolt action gun is, they shooters would use it.
Also a lot of mass shootings use the 10 rd mags they claim would prevent mass shootings.

Many of the politicians when asked say non of the laws not a single one would stop any of the pass shootings or future shootings. They admit the laws they want won’t save a single gosh dang person. So why do they want it? What’s their real reason?

It’s like going in to the hospital for feeling sick and they remove one of your lungs. There’s no connection why did they remove your lung how does that help your cold?

It's about controlling people...


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson