Problem is that the phrase "assault rifle" is used pretty loosely. If we used the wiki version, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
* An individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder.
* Capable of selective fire.
* Intermediate-power cartridge between pistol and traditional rifle.
* Ammunition is supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Your AK47 and M16 that you buy from the gun store is NOT an assault rifle. Why? See item 2. As to what an assault rifle can do that a hunting rifle cannot, I would say it capable of wasting ammo. It's great for throwing lead in a general direction but if you want to get really specific, it is a hard sell. Take an AK47 at 200 yards and it won't be as accurate as many hunting rifles. Say in the 50 yard range if you just want to throw lead at a target, the AK is your gun. That is why I said that I owned a couple of them. If the guy could pay cash, I wouldn't have owned them.

Now if you are against a rifle having auto fire mode or even burst fire, I agree. If you are against a rifle having an M203 grenade launcher. Sure. That is why I asked you, what it is specifically that you are against. If you want to own an AK or M16, I have no issue with it although those are what the unknowing call an "assault rifle". If you are saying that Citizen Joe should have the right to own a fully auto M16, AK or a 30 cal machine gun, that is different.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Muskets, rifles, cannon and abundant ammunition in the hands of American Indians (North and South) would have resulted in a much abbreviated visit by English, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and French colonists.

Even more important would have been a Sequoyah in about 1400.

B

That can be debated, if you call helicopters with snipers is the proper way to serve a warrant I have a bridge to sell you in NY, don't buy Janet Reno's "rule of law" BS its easy to resist arrest if bullets are doing the knocking through your front door....unless they were serving the women and children inside as well.

They could have erected a huge fence around the compound and guarded it.

A little south of there near a town called Huntsville they do that a lot.

B

That would be my primary concern. Selecting "assault rifle" might not have been the best choice.

Probably not. I think it is pretty sleazy to link up a semi auto rifle with a full blown military version which is why they like to use the term "assault rifle" to give people all sorts of visions of Rambo running around shooting up the town.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

This argument will never go away.

The anti gun crowd will never admit that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is a good thing because they "believe" banning guns altogether would help.

No, it won't, criminals will still obtain and use them to kill innocent people.

So when the Wife goes shopping, comes out to her car and Joe crack head puts a knife to her throat and demands she get in the car, do you think it might be a good thing if the 90 pound soccer Mom two cars down pulls out her pistol and stops the guy, or kills him if she has to, or would you just hope the Wife does what he says and "hopes" he does not chop her into little pieces her after he brutally rapes her?

Hello, eutopia does not exist and cannot be legislated to existence as long as humans still roam this earth.

The first two people on this earth had a son murdered by another so you can pretty much ban everything you think can be used as a weapon and people will still find creative ways to take advantage of people criminally.

Guns just even the playing field for the little guy.

Hey, if you can't trust yourself with a gun, so be it, just quit crying about the responsible people who can.

"They say God created all men. Sam Colt made them equal"

Matthew Quigley

Hehe.

Yes, hindsight is 20-20.

The government is trained to issue the warrant and take the man into custody. Any deviation from this procedure is not, typically, in the program.

Expecting the government to follow an alternate procedure for a specific case would be completely contrary to what you, as a military supporter and follower, would accept...........or am I incorrect?

It would be the typical liberal who would advocate a different response after the fact............

.........and I suppose that we let you decide who's a "responsible" person and who's not?

They strongly deviated from their normal procedure thats the point, same goes for Ruby Ridge.

What would be the "normal procedure" for serving a warrant to a "compound" that's fortified?

I agree with Ruby Ridge.

1. Politely invite him in to talk to the sheriff and suggest he bring a lawyer.
2. Wait until the suspect (recall that he's innocent until proven ...) is available. . Etc.

B

1. pick him up on the street they had pictures of him at gun shows.

2. Calling off the attack when they attempted to surrender would be a good place to start.

Since the both of you cannot even agree on the proper procedure..........I'm going to conclude that neither of you know it exactly.