The "What is an Assault Rifle?" thread

[WoundedKnee]

You bristle and then turn and ascribe; did I advocate a breeding program?

 

[HisArpy]

Then point out the mistake and I'll go correct it. No, on second thought, don't bother.



Blah, blah, blah, blah.. Whatever pal. Bash on, you're the expert, right?

I'm not an "expert" at anything except spotting assholes on porn boards. I get lots of practice at it. LOOK! You're one now!

Your mistake is trying to make out like you're better than everyone else here. You nit-pick typos and misused words as if they are pandemic diseases that need to be stomped out. It doesnt matter to you that everyone can understand what's being typed because you can't follow along with the general idea/intent that's being created because you're too busy searching for errors only you see.

In your world DaVinci was a failure because he couldn't create an airplane design that actually worked. Meanwhile everyone else thinks he was an intelligent man who tried to use what methods and tools and engineering skills that were available to him to create things that no one had ever seen before.

But hey, wooden airplanes with insufficient aerodynamic lift make him an idiot. Right?

 

[WoundedKnee]

I'm not an "expert" at anything except spotting assholes on porn boards. I get lots of practice at it. LOOK! You're one now!

Your mistake is trying to make out like you're better than everyone else here. You nit-pick typos and misused words as if they are pandemic diseases that need to be stomped out. It doesnt matter to you that everyone can understand what's being typed because you can't follow along with the general idea/intent that's being created because you're too busy searching for errors only you see.

In your world DaVinci was a failure because he couldn't create an airplane design that actually worked. Meanwhile everyone else thinks he was an intelligent man who tried to use what methods and tools and engineering skills that were available to him to create things that no one had ever seen before.

But hey, wooden airplanes with insufficient aerodynamic lift make him an idiot. Right?

He should have gone all Icarus.

 

[Que]

50 times indeed. ...obsess much?

Small wonder AJ publicly disowned you after your HOF fiasco.

Even he recognized that you're mentally unstable.

You can throw all the "gotcha" questions at me that you like, it doesn't obligate me to answer them, it only makes you look shrill and desperate when you repeat them over and over.

I suppose that's "winning" to you.

So you really don't know how many rounds were availlable in his steel penis substitute that you depended upon, or you do know and don't want to say because you would not be "winning?"

follow up question:

Why is it okay for a minimally trained guard to carry a steel penis extension but it would be unacceptable for you (if you so choose) to carry the exact same weapon yourself for those time when scary black panhandlers accost you?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm sorry, but the Western cultures are currently welcoming in other cultures as a tax base for promises they made to themselves when it comes to "the social safety net." It's a form of suicide by Idiocracy.

That's because western culture isn't 1830's or even 1950's western culture anymore.

Things change.

Western culture is the information era tech culture now with different value sets than of "western culture" from decades past.

And having as many kids as possible as early as possible just isn't part of that value set anymore.

It's almost guaranteed to land you in poverty and looked down upon as trash.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You bristle and then turn and ascribe; did I advocate a breeding program?

Did I ever say you did?

Don't be so defensive....I'm just saying the USA has no reason to be concerned with max population growth anytime soon.

 

[Que]

50 times indeed. ...obsess much?

Small wonder AJ publicly disowned you after your HOF fiasco.

Even he recognized that you're mentally unstable.

You can throw all the "gotcha" questions at me that you like, it doesn't obligate me to answer them, it only makes you look shrill and desperate when you repeat them over and over.

I suppose that's "winning" to you.

I think you'll find most of the people who did that are dead now ... you just can't seem to get your head around the fact that that act, and indeed everything that 'made America great' are historical artefacts. As long as you mythologise this creation story, you can't move into the 21st century and deal with what's actually happening now.

They are actually a lot smarter than you in the sense that they anticipated the very thing that you claim made their work irrelevant today. They provided a handy amendment process written in black-letter law.

Americans rid large do not wish to amend the Constitution to remove that important protection. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean that America does not think it's important. Obviously America does or it would have been amended.

not one of the anti-gun nuts on this board who are Americans and have the capacity to vote have, while they Yammer on about how bad the Second Amendment is has written their congressmen to demand that legislations be introduced to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That document by the way was so well drafted that it's the basis no doubt for your own founding documents regardless of what country you live in. every generation thinks that they have invented the wheel. There is absolutely nothing new in human nature Under the Sun. They understood it all they anticipated at all and they prepare to document specifically designed to prevent future Generations from throwing out their work on a popular whim.

 

[coachdb18]

They are actually a lot smarter than you in the sense that they anticipated the very thing that you claim made their work irrelevant today. They provided a handy amendment process written in black-letter law.

Americans rid large do not wish to amend the Constitution to remove that important protection. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean that America does not think it's important. Obviously America does or it would have been amended.

not one of the anti-gun nuts on this board who are Americans and have the capacity to vote have, while they Yammer on about how bad the Second Amendment is has written their congressmen to demand that legislations be introduced to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That document by the way was so well drafted that it's the basis no doubt for your own founding documents regardless of what country you live in. every generation thinks that they have invented the wheel. There is absolutely nothing new in human nature Under the Sun. They understood it all they anticipated at all and they prepare to document specifically designed to prevent future Generations from throwing out their work on a popular whim.

What she fails to understand, is that the government never dispensed this right to the people in the first place, and the government does not have the power to take back the right of self defense. The second amendment is simply the government's promise to the American people that it won't try to restrict that right. If it were to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would only be a repeal of the promise not to interfere with the right to self defense, the right itself would be unaffected by such a change.

 

[Amoebah]

Speaking of assault rifles, here's Tiffany Trump with a full clip.

https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/tiffany-trump-hockey-casual-outfit-embed.jpg?w=620&h=882

 

[oggbashan]

...

That document by the way was so well drafted that it's the basis no doubt for your own founding documents regardless of what country you live in. every generation thinks that they have invented the wheel. There is absolutely nothing new in human nature Under the Sun. They understood it all they anticipated at all and they prepare to document specifically designed to prevent future Generations from throwing out their work on a popular whim.

They based it on Magna Carta, English Law and some of the Bible. The principles go back much further to the earliest written laws. Those who drafted the US Constitution were better educated in the principles of Law than many law graduates of today.

 

[Que]

They based it on Magna Carta, English Law and some of the Bible. The principles go back much further to the earliest written laws. Those who drafted the US Constitution were better educated in the principles of Law than many law graduates of today.

I would venture to say the vast majority of the lawyers in the United States. The modern study of US Constitutional law has very little to do with the actual Constitution and everything to do with how it has been successfully distorted since.

Mind you, some of those distortions were necessary for the real world functioning of our jurisprudence system but I wouldn't say that's the majority.

Those on our left don't much like it.

They like to refer to it as a "living, breathing document" because they don't like black letter law if it doesn't suit their ends. They like the law to mean what they want it to mean, instead of what it actually says.

It was designed to be a living document that's what the amendment process is for.

The left doesn't like it because our republican form of government is incompatible with the democracy that they wish it was. Much easier to vote yourself benefits, dispense patronage, and buy votes from the public treasury through mob rule if it were a straight democracy.

 

[Amoebah]

Long live the Kleptocracy!

 

[Que]

What she fails to understand, is that the government never dispensed this right to the people in the first place, and the government does not have the power to take back the right of self defense. The second amendment is simply the government's promise to the American people that it won't try to restrict that right. If it were to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would only be a repeal of the promise not to interfere with the right to self defense, the right itself would be unaffected by such a change.

That's a whole 'nother discussion that goes into the philosophical mindset behind the founding of this country and the founding of what would replace it if we lose our republic. Eyer, (if he were around) would say we've already lost it. I would tend to agree with him.

It goes to the mindset that permitted them to morally justify to themselves the taking of of arms to seize those freedoms that they felt that they were naturally imbued with. King George and today's progressives have an entirely different mindset about that.

They recognized the fact that at some point because it's happened to every other civilization, that the tyranny of the majority would overcome. They specifically left us armed for that eventuality.

Heller did not really address that. All it really addressed is your right to self protection which is in essence avoiding the tyranny of any other individual or group.

 

[Que]

Long live the Kleptocracy!

...aided and abetted by the Idiocracy.

 

[mark_j]

I'm not an "expert" at anything except spotting assholes on porn boards. I get lots of practice at it. LOOK! You're one now!

Your mistake is trying to make out like you're better than everyone else here. You nit-pick typos and misused words as if they are pandemic diseases that need to be stomped out. It doesnt matter to you that everyone can understand what's being typed because you can't follow along with the general idea/intent that's being created because you're too busy searching for errors only you see.

In your world DaVinci was a failure because he couldn't create an airplane design that actually worked. Meanwhile everyone else thinks he was an intelligent man who tried to use what methods and tools and engineering skills that were available to him to create things that no one had ever seen before.

But hey, wooden airplanes with insufficient aerodynamic lift make him an idiot. Right?

Whatever makes you feel better, chief.

 

[HisArpy]

Whatever makes you feel better, chief.

Spoken like a true hero of the Internet Gustypo. Never slink off to the shadows when you can stand there and look like an idiot.

 

[HisArpy]

They based it on Magna Carta, English Law and some of the Bible. The principles go back much further to the earliest written laws. Those who drafted the US Constitution were better educated in the principles of Law than many law graduates of today.

That's because they lived with an understanding of the law rather than just paying lip service to it. In order to conduct ones self in business at the time, one had to have more than a passing familiarity of the concepts behind the laws. And certainly beyond the mere knowledge there is some nebulous thing called "law" which can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean at the moment. An argument legal scholars of today seem to be enamored with.

 

[mark_j]

Spoken like a true hero of the Internet Gustypo. Never slink off to the shadows when you can stand there and look like an idiot.

I'm not interested in engaging in an internet pissing match. You wanna vent your spleen to prove how much of a Big Man you are then knock your socks off. I said what I had to say and if that is unacceptable to you then so be it.

Anything else is a waste of time.

 

[KimGordon67]

They are actually a lot smarter than you in the sense that they anticipated the very thing that you claim made their work irrelevant today. They provided a handy amendment process written in black-letter law.

Americans rid large do not wish to amend the Constitution to remove that important protection. Just because you don't think it's important doesn't mean that America does not think it's important. Obviously America does or it would have been amended.

not one of the anti-gun nuts on this board who are Americans and have the capacity to vote have, while they Yammer on about how bad the Second Amendment is has written their congressmen to demand that legislations be introduced to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

That document by the way was so well drafted that it's the basis no doubt for your own founding documents regardless of what country you live in. every generation thinks that they have invented the wheel. There is absolutely nothing new in human nature Under the Sun. They understood it all they anticipated at all and they prepare to document specifically designed to prevent future Generations from throwing out their work on a popular whim.

Nope - ours is a treaty with the indigenous people (albeit poorly observed for a fair length of time). Quite a different ball game. (I also don't think we'd call it the 'founding document of the country' - the country was existing just fine before we got here.)

 

[KimGordon67]

And that's respectable because you're at least willing to own that.



It seems that way because it's part of the ignorance campaign....but it's not.

It's still just a semi-auto .223/5.56mm, the shooter could use any other semi-auto .223/5.56mm rifle to the EXACT same effect.

Like this AR-15 that's NOT an assault rifle.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/frs_15-tfb.jpeg

Even Pee Pawz "ranch" or "huntin' " rifle.
https://www.sportsmanswarehouse.com/img/products/original/ruger_mini14_ranch_rifle_1219613_1.jpg

Have you actually read the piece I was referring to? He doesn't refer to 'assault' anything. He just talks, in fairly vivid detail, about the substantial difference in the effects of this guy's gun and other gun injuries he's seen, and the somewhat significant consequences of that difference. While I can't see the point of most guns held by civilians, he makes a pretty compelling argument for dealing with the ones that do this sort of shit specifically, simply on the basis of the near impossibility of giving the people who are shot any really useful medical treatment.

The link is here.

 

[removed9556]

 

[Weird Harold]

Have you actually read the piece I was referring to? He doesn't refer to 'assault' anything. He just talks, in fairly vivid detail, about the substantial difference in the effects of this guy's gun and other gun injuries he's seen, and the somewhat significant consequences of that difference.

The doctor quoted in that article -- and anywhere gun grabbers want to make the point about how terrible the wounds were -- is comparing apples to oranges. ANY high-velocity rifle round will cause more damage than a handgun round (except for handguns that fire rifle caliber rounds.)

Pretty much any "gun nut" could have told him that the wounds would be worse than handgun wounds. They could also tell him that "full-power" rifle bullets would do a lot more damage.

That begs the question of why "gun grabbers" only want to ban the specific model of rifle used in this massacre. Also why they're not more outraged at the local LEOs and FBI for not following up on the "terroristic threats" and other warning flags the shooter practically waved in their faces.

Something needs to be done to reduce the number of school shootings in the US. I submit that following up on tips of "terrorist threats" -- like Las Vegas Metro has done twice in the last week and Texas LEOs have done three or four times that have made Google News -- is far more effective than trying to ban guns.

 

[mark_j]

Have you actually read the piece I was referring to? He doesn't refer to 'assault' anything. He just talks, in fairly vivid detail, about the substantial difference in the effects of this guy's gun and other gun injuries he's seen, and the somewhat significant consequences of that difference. While I can't see the point of most guns held by civilians, he makes a pretty compelling argument for dealing with the ones that do this sort of shit specifically, simply on the basis of the near impossibility of giving the people who are shot any really useful medical treatment.

The link is here.

I've read it. While it is interesting, the person is making an apples and oranges comparison. The effect of being shot with a pistol and shot with a rifle are two entirely different things. Without going into a whole technical explanation, the .223/5.56 cartridge is no more deadly than any other center fire rifle cartridge. In fact it's actually considered a medium powered cartridge at best and there are many small bore cartridges whose power far exceeds the .223/5.56.

It's not a magical cartridge nor is it really high powered in comparison other rifle cartridges.

Of course, not that this means anything, right?

 

[KimGordon67]

I've read it. While it is interesting, the person is making an apples and oranges comparison. The effect of being shot with a pistol and shot with a rifle are two entirely different things. Without going into a whole technical explanation, the .223/5.56 cartridge is no more deadly than any other center fire rifle cartridge. In fact it's actually considered a medium powered cartridge at best and there are many small bore cartridges whose power far exceeds the .223/5.56.

It's not a magical cartridge nor is it really high powered in comparison other rifle cartridges.

Of course, not that this means anything, right?

I think that's kind of his point.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Have you actually read the piece I was referring to? He doesn't refer to 'assault' anything. He just talks, in fairly vivid detail, about the substantial difference in the effects of this guy's gun and other gun injuries he's seen, and the somewhat significant consequences of that difference. While I can't see the point of most guns held by civilians, he makes a pretty compelling argument for dealing with the ones that do this sort of shit specifically, simply on the basis of the near impossibility of giving the people who are shot any really useful medical treatment.

The link is here.

Here's the problem with this type of emotional appeal: Any gun powerful enough to bring down a deer, is powerful enough to bring down a person. Even the most reasonable anti-gun people repeatedly say, "We don't want to take away your hunting guns" ...well, the AR-15 isn't really all that powerful of a gun and banning that model would still leave everyday deer rifles that make much bigger holes.