AK Sponsor
Posted: 11/24/2004 6:05:46 PM EDT
|
I'm will be doing a speech why the assault weapon ban should NOT be renewed. One of the anti-gun crowd's arguments is that AK varients have no legitimate use (except killing people) I would like to counter this argument by presenting hunters proudly displaying both their kill and their AK or SKS type of rifle. I am asking that any hunters on this board who wish to share their pictures with not only me, but my class (about 30 people) in order to persuade people that of many legitimate uses, hunting, is in fact, one of them. If you wish to remain anonymous, please blott out your face. Thank you very much for your help |
|
Here is a deer from this year and last year that I shot while walking around my farm property. Yes I had large capacity magazines, but I didn't shoot the deer full of holes. Only took one shot to bring them down. I am an avid hunter and I very much enjoy hunting with my AK. My MAK90 Page: www.frankbachman.com/MAK90/mak-90.htm http://www.frankbachman.com/images/Hunting/Frank_Mak_9ptbuck.JPG http://www.frankbachman.com/images/Hunting/Mak_9ptbuck.JPG http://www.frankbachman.com/images/Hunting/Frank_Mak__Deer.JPG http://www.frankbachman.com/images/Hunting/Mak__Deer.JPG |
|
Nice looking buck and doe there -x-. Something else you might do is visit the Winchester Ammo, Federal Ammo and Remington Ammo websites and get their factory load data on the 7,62x39mm and .30-30 ammo. Show how they compare in power and energy levels. Try to dispel the "high powered" assault rifle myth. Maybe get the data on the .30-06, 7mm RemMag and maybe one or two other calibers that are popular in your area. Show what true "high power" is. |
You should not lie about shooting those deer. We all know your dog is the true killer! Look I can see blood on his fangs in the second pic!  Nice deer Samuel |
HaHa! Yep, you got it! He is one extremely vicious toy poodle!!! He |
|
Rant Warning! I admire your determination on this project, and certainly think it's worth doing. Best of luck! Begin rant > Question -What does "sporting purpose" have to do with the Second Amendment? Answer - NOTHING! One of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as the final line of defense against government tyranny. In fact, "weapons suitable for military (militia) use" are expressly stated for this purpose, rendering any current AWB unconstitutional! It's unfortunate that some judges don't have the balls to buck left-wing political correctness and rule accordingly. So while one part of me admires that you're going head-to-head with the anti-Bill of Rights mindset, another part of me feels that if you discuss "legitmate purpose" in terms of "sporting purpose," you will be getting off on the wrong foot and will not set the arguments in their proper context. Ceck out this link, especially the part that addresses the "sporting purpose" argument. Here's another article of interest, and another. Arm yourself with the facts about the U.S. Constituion and the Bill of Rights, and don't let those you are debating take it off course with conversations about "sporting" or what they construe as "legitimate" purposes. Be sure to print out some of the material presented in the links provided, and cite the sources (especially those of the founding fathers) - it will add legitimacy to your arguments. Go on the offensive - make them explain why the Bill of Rights should be gutted! Ask them if they are willing to dismantle our constitutional republic in their quest for the illusionary security of placing the responsibility for our individual and collective safety in the hands of government! Did you know that the courts have ruled mulitple times that the police are not legally obligated to protect individuals? Read this. End rant. I hope this helps. |
...lol... |
|
There was a thread about that, only pictures on it though are the ones posted here by X. www.ak47.net/forums/topic.html?b=4&f=64&t=65564 Also a few points to hit on: The argument of "no legitimate sporting purpose" comes from the idea that "assault weapon" features are not necessary for sport shooting. However, they certainly do not hinder sport shooting. Just because something is not necessary does not mean that it is not legitimate. Also, anti-gunners like to insinuate that the only legitimate shooting sports are hunting, skeet, and paper targets. Backyard plinking of cans, bottles, dead appliances, cars, etc. is just as legitimate as a backyard game of football, baseball, or basketball. On the other hand, "assault weapon" features are not necessary for crime. Before, during, and after the ban, the banned weapons have only been used in a very small percentage of crimes. There is no evidence that the banned features were a factor in these crimes. The assault weapon ban is very similar to the prohibition of alcohol, it was passed under the promise of greatly reducing crime, but died because it failed to live up to that promise. A common tool of anti-gunners is the sesnationalism and the despicable use of emotion and imagery. They exploit the grieving of families who have suffered a loss and instead of going after the root cause of the tragity, they go after the characteristics (manufacturer, model, action, caliber, accessories) of a weapon that may or may not have been used in a particular crime. Another common image is of "AK-47s and Uzis flooding the streets. This is racist and casteist. "The streets" almost universally refers to lower class and minority neighborhoods and in this context conjures up images of gang wars and drive-by shootings with many innocent bystanders being shot. But a large portion of gun owners, and certainly "assault weapon" owners are rural. To be fair they should mention Ak-47s and Uzis flooding the back roads, fields, and woods. They also inaccuratly list items that were not in the ban, such as machine guns, tanks, and flame throwers, or the the ban only applied to "military style" weapons, AK-47s and Uzis being the two favorites. Machine guns have been heavily regulated since 1934 and banned since 1986, all machine guns made or imported before then were grandfatered. The limited number of machine guns available to civilians are rather expensive and require a $200 transfer tax, local law enforcement approval, ATF approval and FBI background check that takes several months. Some very wealthe individuals do own decommishioned tanks, battle ships, and fighter planes. Flame throwers can be purchased or rented at contractor supply stores, they are used to apply some types of rubber roofing. The ban affected all weapons. The military and civilian weapon markets have gone hand-in-hand for centuries, the separation of the two is fairly recent. Many civilian weapons are patterned after ones designed for the military, and the military has adopted many weapons designed for the civilian market. Civilian versions of many military wepon, including M-16s, AK-47s, And Uzis were readily available during the ban. Basically the are two bigger issue at hand here, 1) the second amendment is not about sports, and 2) as a free nation we cannot pass laws based on emotion, cojecture or what is deemed "not necessary. p.s. Sorry that went on so long. I partially wrote it for my own use, should the need arise. Sorry about any spelling errors and lack of paragraphs. BTW, casteism is really a word, I looked it up. |
AK Sponsor