Anti-Gun activists cannot define what they mean by "Weapons Of War" and "Assault Rifle". We can use these terms loosly in informal conversation, but when it comes to defining them for legal purposes it is simply not possible. Many find this to be terminally frustrating. Originally Posted by ICU 812They can't define it because they are fucking idiots. Anti Gun Activist don't have a clue about Firearms, Crime or self defense. The idiot in the following clip proves it.
... I'll even go a step further.Bullshit. There are no regular cops shooting 50 cal BMG. Maybe a SWAT team has one, but not you everyday constable. Hell do a Google search on the damage done by a 50 cal! Blowing bodies in half or arms off isn't too bad unless there are 3 or 4 ppl behind or around the perpetrator. Then you got a lot of problems.
Because the police and military have them.
#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
A weapon that is used by the military in the war. Certainly not any that are sold to the population, they don’t meet the criteria Originally Posted by oilfieldace
right. certain types of firearms are dual use. meaning they are used by both civilians and military. so theres a fair amount of cross-over between the two sides over the years.
Please re-read the OP.
There you will find that many to most small arms used in war have a definite cross-over with the civilian world. this is true for rifles that were once designed for use by soldiers and are now considered to be acceptable in the civilian side, and it is true for firearms initially designed as civilian rifles and adopted by the military side. Originally Posted by ICU 812