Question for the firearms owners here

Now , some will say I am a total liberal trying to take your firearms from you. No, I believe you have a right to non-assault weapons and no an AR-15 in its natural unaltered state is NOT an assault weapon. What IF you had a rifle (shoulder weapon) that had a built-in suppressor and could penetrate most body armor worn today by Police and in many instances military? Would you consider that an assault weapon?

No!

My deer rifle could do that

Somehow I doubt that unless you're using a rifle capable of taking down an elephant. Or are you using illegal Kevlar coated ammo?
But then again some folks only equate the title to assault weapon to an M-60

assault weapon is a made up terminology

The OP is showing his ignorance of ballistic performance
Compared to most rifles rounds that are used for hunting, the typical AR-15 .223 or the .762x39 used in the AK-47 are pretty anemic.

My favorite rifle is a Remington 700 Sendero in 300 Winchester Magnum. I have taken Elk at 300 yards with it with 180 grn accubonds at 3150 fps.

Believe me, body armor or not, you would not want to be on the receiving end of it.

And it is not an “elephant rifle” by any means.

Somehow I doubt that unless you're using a rifle capable of taking down an elephant. Or are you using illegal Kevlar coated ammo?
But then again some folks only equate the title to assault weapon to an M-60 Originally Posted by chefnerd

You asked. I answered.

With the right bullet a 308 can crack an engine block.
You are definitely not a gun guy.



Question has been answered

The majority of police across the country normally wear level IIIA body armor or soft inserts as their everyday ballistic protection. There is nothing wrong with Level IIIA body armor, but it's only going to stop handgun bullets.Jul 24, 2021

Levels 3 and 4 have inserts for various types of plating which will stop rifle bullets up to certain velocities and calibers.

A stout 308 load with a hard nosed bullet will penetrate.

What is an "assault weapon"? Does the definition include the phrase "scary looking"?

RE Body Armolr: It is not the rifle so much as it id the ammo used. And furthermore, many cartridges suitable for hunting will penetrate body armor . . . or the door of a car for that matter. Think of cartridges suitable for Elk, Moose, Bear and even White Tailed Deer.

It is currently legal, though heavily regulated, for a citizen to own a suppressor or a rifle with a "built in suppressor". The same sort of regulation allows a citizen to own a rifle with a very short barrel. Often these are owned in conjunction.

It is more heavily regulated and far more expensive, but a citizen may lawfully own a fully automatic weapon.

Now , some will say I am a total liberal trying to take your firearms from you. No, I believe you have a right to non-assault weapons and no an AR-15 in its natural unaltered state is NOT an assault weapon. What IF you had a rifle (shoulder weapon) that had a built-in suppressor and could penetrate most body armor worn today by Police and in many instances military? Would you consider that an assault weapon? Originally Posted by chefnerd

LOL.. The reason people would say that is because you don't know the first thing about what you're advocating. You think you have some trick reasonable proposition for the rest of us to accept. When, in reality, it turns out you are pig-ignorant on what it is you want to ban. You've swallowed the Liberal talking points like a $80 list-crawler blow-n-go ho. Why don't you try to engage your grey matter and do some research to determine who IS ACTUALLY committing the preponderance of gun violence in the US? Why don't YOU define what an assault weapon is? Why don't you tell us why an assault weapon stripped of its accessories is no longer a threat that needs to be removed from civilian access?

You can't and won't. Why? It's easy. Because you're a liar. You're lying about what your true aims are, you're lying about what motivates you to see your law abiding neighbors disarmed. You're lying about who you are.

No, not unless it was fully Automatic.

What is an "assault weapon"? Does the definition include the phrase "scary looking"? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

the prospective atf director couldnt say

i think its whatever the dims say it is when and if they ever get the chance to pass a bill

In case you lost all of your weapons in an unfortunate boating accident, as I did.

The new Gen 5 series is available here: GLOCK 22 Gen5

The 40 S&W caliber closes the gap between the .45 Auto calibers and the 9x19 service calibers. The G22 is now available with Gen5 technologies including the nDLC finish, a flared mag-well, the enhanced GLOCK Marksman barrel (GMB) for increased accuracy, and an ambidextrous slide stop lever.

No!
My deer rifle could do that Originally Posted by winn dixie

My uncle's coyote rifle does do that (used on deer also) and has a very nice scope.
I took the coyotes at about 240 and 220 yards a couple days apart. He's taken a couple moose.

And ICU is correct about type of ammo.

LOL.. The reason people would say that is because you don't know the first thing about what you're advocating. You think you have some trick reasonable proposition for the rest of us to accept. When, in reality, it turns out you are pig-ignorant on what it is you want to ban. You've swallowed the Liberal talking points like a $80 list-crawler blow-n-go ho. Why don't you try to engage your grey matter and do some research to determine who IS ACTUALLY committing the preponderance of gun violence in the US? Why don't YOU define what an assault weapon is? Why don't you tell us why an assault weapon stripped of its accessories is no longer a threat that needs to be removed from civilian access?

You can't and won't. Why? It's easy. Because you're a liar. You're lying about what your true aims are, you're lying about what motivates you to see your law abiding neighbors disarmed. You're lying about who you are. Originally Posted by texassapper

Your panties sure are bunched up aren't they? He didn't say a damn thing about banning anything. Bans are stupid and pointless anyway. Limit me to 10 rounds in a mag, I'll just take 10 of them instead of 4...

Limiting rounds in a mag has been tried. Nobody is going to confiscate what you already have. It is possible that sales of new mags and guns might be stopped.