How do you define a "Sniper Rifle"? Many military sniper rifles are simply upgraded hunting rifles: both the US Army and US Marine Corps use a version of the Remington 700 series rifle. Others are hardened versions of competition rifles. There are very few "purpose built" sniper rifles. Even the PSG-1 is just a match-grade modified G3 rifle. Then there are Anti-Material Special Purpose Rifles, like the Barrett M82A1 .50 BMG and other super-caliber rifles.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
In your country maybe, as a Metis, I have a constitutional right to hunt.
The internet is more like a private residence. You don't have to go to that address, and no one can broadcast a message to thousands of people who aren't already at that address and have chosen to be there.
So it's not like shouting from the street corner where the public is going to be, and forcing your speech at them, thus there are no protections for public decency.
The laws aimed at regulating the internet so far are aimed at reducing or eliminating criminal activity, and the laws only exist because there's a foundation in the real world for them. So child pornography, human trafficking, etc have specific laws that apply only to the internet, but these laws simply make existing laws more easily prosecuted against illegal activity taking place in webservers.
It's a weird tangent but I gotta ask: if you weren't there to "challenge nature", why not just buy the deer meat?
Because the bullet was cheaper.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, this discussion is about the USA Police State, not Soviet Canuckistan.
The Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Bill of Rights was not adopted until March 1792.
That was exactly my point, thanks for making it better than me.
If you're killing someone at 500+ yards you're not doing it in self defense. At least in no scenario I can think of right now. A siege on your giant estate or something? I wanted to ask you guys about the validity of sniper rifles as weapons of self defense and not just war.
Vastly cheaper, in part due to enforced scarcity. If the government allowed companies to farm venison the same way we farm beef, then it'd be cheaper, better tasting, and would get PETA all hot and bothered.
Ugh, farmed deer would not taste better just like grass fed cattle taste VASTLY superior to whatever cornmash factory farm cattle eat.
Nothing's more valuable than your time, man. So I assume you also did it for fun, no? The fun of challenging nature, maybe?
Actually I hate hunting. I went because a friend asked me to go with him and I'm a MUCH better shot.Nothing's more valuable than your time, man. So I assume you also did it for fun, no? The fun of challenging nature, maybe?
You agree that the distinction is arbitrary, so why are you asking if it should be legal? Obviously if one is legal than the other should be also, since they aren't really different. Why should I have to justify my self defense requirements?
If it makes you feel better, I live on 4.5 acres, and there's 400 feet between my house and some of my property lines. While I doubt I'd ever need one, does that justify a so-called sniper rifle? (ie, regular rifle with a scope and enough training so I can hit something at distance)
GasBandit
Staff member
I can tell you, the few times I've gone deer hunting, it's been more about challenging my asscheeks to put up with sitting in a tree for 5 hours that I would normally have been asleep under other circumstances.Nothing's more valuable than your time, man. So I assume you also did it for fun, no? The fun of challenging nature, maybe?
It did taste pretty good though.
I'm not asking you to justify anything personally, you do you. I asked a question. Me thinks the steinman doth protest too much.[DOUBLEPOST=1468003625,1468003554][/DOUBLEPOST]
That's "going primal" to me, but I'm a city boy who likes his food refrigerated and hates being under solar rays for any amount of time, so what do I know.
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh believe me, there weren't many solar rays and it was plenty refrigerated out there.
(Deer season is generally Nov-Jan, and most of my "hunting" took place before dawn.)
Last edited:
Ok, let me re-approach the question.
Please define "sniper rifle." Without a definition that makes it objectively discernable from other weapons, I'm not sure that an objective answer can be provided.
Don't you live in a Catholic country?
You get massive brofist and high five, brother.
Stay safe out there.[DOUBLEPOST=1468009379,1468008894][/DOUBLEPOST]The purpose of use of deadly force is to stop the threat. (Feel free to back me up on this, OC.)
I, as a Youth Counselor (and DAMN I'm going to still refer to myself as that until the day I retire, though they're turning us essentially into Juvenile Corrections Officers), am not authorized to use deadly force, as it is not something we are trained for. Even the brachial stun that I am trained to use isn't considered DF anymore. However, if I am being attacked, and I truly feel my life is in danger, I will do whatever is bleeping necessary to end the threat - even if it means using a chair leg as a broadsword.
The problems I have with the two traffic stops in LA and MN is - what the bleep were the cops thinking when they were pulling these guys over?
The Dallas and Bristol shooters - those are just idiot psychos who are looking for Suicide By Cop.
GasBandit
Staff member
Nevada City, CA Councilwoman: The Dallas Police Got What They Deserved
Even Californians are starting to sit up and take notice and say "Ok yeah, maybe that was a bit over the line, and maybe she should go."
Even Californians are starting to sit up and take notice and say "Ok yeah, maybe that was a bit over the line, and maybe she should go."
Nope, I live in a secular state with no official religion where the majority of the population might be catholic but would be heavily fined if they used it in any official way. Y'know, like the US and protestants.
[DOUBLEPOST=1468015932,1468015764][/DOUBLEPOST]
That was exactly my point. We need definitions for "arms" that are legal to bare. A normal rifle that might legitimately be used for self defense instantly becomes a weapon of war with just adding a scope. Yes or no?
Whatever your answer, that it's an iffy definition was precisely my point.
Angry people bein' angry and upset that nobody listens to them.
Codifying anything with specific definitions would inspire people to try and find the loopholes. This is why the hard-coded restrictions are placed on specific characteristics like "full auto" or "magazine capacity" instead of trying to define terms like "assault weapon" or "paramilitary."
--Patrick
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
To be specific, I say it *should* apply to grenades. Current law interpretation says otherwise.
Right, should. And if you were so inclined you could argue so in front of a judge or supreme court or whatever and if he/they agreed grenades could be completely legal under "arms". That's the issue with leaving things undefined. It's up to current interpretation.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, from my point of view, it is defined
Actually, from my point of view, it is defined
Under current US law, grenades are classified as "Destructive Devices" and are regulated separately. Copypasta from wikipedia:
In the United States, a destructive device is a type of firearm or explosive device regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, revised by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Gun Control Act of 1968.
Examples of destructive devices include grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch (.50 inches or 12.7mm), including some rifles and shotguns, both semi automatic and manually operated. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.
All National Firearms Act firearms including destructive devices, must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.
(2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter (.50 inches or 12.7 mm), except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term destructive device shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army, pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.[1]
The term "Secretary" originally referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, as the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986—since the BATF's transfer to the Department of Justice in 2002, the term "Secretary" now refers to the Attorney General.[2]
Muzzle-loading guns are not considered firearms in the US and do not fall under the regulations of the NFA. However, their projectiles may still be subject to NFA regulation. For instance, a person may manufacture, possess and fire a black powder, muzzle-loading cannon of any bore diameter, but may not fire explosive shells from that cannon, as the explosive shell is itself defined as a destructive device.
In the United States, a destructive device is a type of firearm or explosive device regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, revised by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and Gun Control Act of 1968.
Examples of destructive devices include grenades, and firearms with a bore over one half of an inch (.50 inches or 12.7mm), including some rifles and shotguns, both semi automatic and manually operated. While current federal laws allow destructive devices, some states have banned them from transfer to civilians. In states where banned, only law enforcement officers and military personnel are allowed to possess them.
All National Firearms Act firearms including destructive devices, must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The definition of a "destructive device" is found in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(f). The definition reads as follows:
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, (A) bomb, (B) grenade, (C) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (D) missile having an explosive charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (E) mine or (F) similar device.
(2) Any weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter (.50 inches or 12.7 mm), except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; and
(3) Any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into a destructive device as defined in subparagraphs (1) and (2) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term destructive device shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned or given by the Secretary of the Army, pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of Title 10 of the United States Code; or any other device the Secretary finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, or is an antique or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting purposes.[1]
The term "Secretary" originally referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, as the National Firearms Act is part of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986—since the BATF's transfer to the Department of Justice in 2002, the term "Secretary" now refers to the Attorney General.[2]
Muzzle-loading guns are not considered firearms in the US and do not fall under the regulations of the NFA. However, their projectiles may still be subject to NFA regulation. For instance, a person may manufacture, possess and fire a black powder, muzzle-loading cannon of any bore diameter, but may not fire explosive shells from that cannon, as the explosive shell is itself defined as a destructive device.
I'm sorry, but weren't you just saying that we shouldn't be sticking to a 220 year old document? Now we shouldn't allow judgements based on modern interpretation?
You shouldn't be sticking to a 220 year old document, no, it should be redefined and updated with the times, like literally almost everything else is. My point isn't "we shouldn't allow judgements based on modern interpretation" but that things like Constitutions SHOULDN'T be up for interpretation and individual bias in the first place. Just like it's hard to define "sniper rifle" being bad. That's my point.
Am I still good at English??
Well, if changes and alterations no longer make it a 220 year old document, then the last ammendment to be added to the US Constitution (number 27) was added in 1992.You shouldn't be sticking to a 220 year old document, no, it should be redefined and updated with the times, like literally almost everything else is. My point isn't "we shouldn't allow judgements based on modern interpretation" but that things like Constitutions SHOULDN'T be up for interpretation and individual bias in the first place. Just like it's hard to define "sniper rifle" being bad. That's my point.
Am I still good at English??
Grenades, bazookas, RPGs, these are all classed as WMDs.
EDIT: Looks like @Null already got there.
--Patrick