|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
CO: What is considered an assault weapon?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Several municipalities in Boulder County passed new gun restrictions on “assault weapons,” but what does that mean?
In a package of new gun restrictions passed on Tuesday night, Boulder City Council wrote that assault weapons have “unique features that allow shooters to rapidly fire a large number of rounds — more than is ever needed for lawful self-defense — while maintaining control of the firearm in order to accurately target and kill more victims.”
The King Soopers shooter, for example, used an AR-style pistol said to be designed for close combat, “because of the short length and ability to fire rifle rounds that can penetrate ballistic-resistant vests,” according to the council. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(6/9/2022)
|
| Who defined how many rounds are needed for lawful self-defence ? I want all I can carry ! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
