Why does anyone NEED an assault rifle?

No I have not said anything on it. I have posted links which have definitions. That you can't read and understand the English language is not my problem.

The definition comes from the US Army, and there are weapons which meet the US Army definition of "Assault Rifle" that have select fire, but do not have full auto as an option only semi, and burst.

But you keep on arguing, its fucking comical...
See here is where you are wrong yet again. Burst fire is FULL AUTO fire with a limited number of multiple rounds per single trigger pull. It is defined as burst to delineate it from unlimited full auto and limited rounds full auto.
 
Most of the left is factually clueless about guns and gun terminology. They invent their own politically charged terms to scare the ignorant in society.

I think this the right on target. Most anti-gun propagandists don't really know anything about the subject they're so vehemently against.

Guns are simple machines; you put the bullets in, aim, and pull the trigger. The number of bullets capable of being loaded into the gun is irrelevant since one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused. Whether a gun is semi-auto or a revolver is irrelevant because one bullet is enough to cause death or harm if the gun is misused.

Yet these are the things the anti-gun propagandists focus on. The question is why?

The answer is that they, and their adoring fans are clueless. They claim that "assault weapons" are dangerous. The truth is, every gun is dangerous so an "assault weapon" isn't any more dangerous than usual. They claim that "assault weapons" can shoot more bullets quicker, but any semi-automatic rifle can shoot just as quickly. They claim that "assault weapons" are high powered, yet most shoot a .22 caliber bullet.

The facts aren't in support of their arguments but the anti-gun propagandists make those arguments anyway because they, and their sycophants, are clueless about the truth.
 
That isn't a US Army Field Manual covering US Army small arms, and besides the definition presented is not characteristic of the AR-15, or any other semi-automatic rifle in common use in the US. So the term "Assault Rifle" used by the media to describe AR-15s or other semi-automatic rifles in common use, is a made-up propaganda term. You dropped your mike on your shoe.:rolleyes:
 
Most of the left is factually clueless about guns and gun terminology. They invent their own politically charged terms to scare the ignorant in society.
EXACTLY RIGHT! Then they get pissy when you use correct terminology and say you know what I meant. I usually say that's not the problem, but do YOU know what you meant?
 
Biggest issue with the anti gun crowd is they treat guns in a very strange and unique way. In no other case do they blame the existence and access to the object or weapon used to kill people, nor do they care about other things that kill a lot more people. Cars kill a lot more people than guns? Not an issue. Crazy person stabs a dozen people at a public place? Knives aren't the problem. It's only when guns are involved that suddenly the tool used and number of lives lost becomes important.
 
I haven't seen a post anywhere about George Alvarez that ran into 18 people and killed 8 migrants, some Venezuelans, waiting in front of migrant shelter. He was reported to be cursing them and calling them invaders. Apparently mass killings only count if you use a gun.
 
I haven't seen a post anywhere about George Alvarez that ran into 18 people and killed 8 migrants, some Venezuelans, waiting in front of migrant shelter. He was reported to be cursing them and calling them invaders. Apparently mass killings only count if you use a gun.
Exactly. Number of people killed and what they were killed by means nothing. Unless it involves guns, then it becomes everything.
 
Biggest issue with the anti gun crowd is they treat guns in a very strange and unique way. In no other case do they blame the existence and access to the object or weapon used to kill people, nor do they care about other things that kill a lot more people. Cars kill a lot more people than guns? Not an issue. Crazy person stabs a dozen people at a public place? Knives aren't the problem. It's only when guns are involved that suddenly the tool used and number of lives lost becomes important.
Part of the reason I support mass transit is because of all the people killed by cars. Anything that reduces the number of people driving saves lives.
 
Biggest issue with the anti gun crowd is they treat guns in a very strange and unique way. In no other case do they blame the existence and access to the object or weapon used to kill people, nor do they care about other things that kill a lot more people. Cars kill a lot more people than guns? Not an issue. Crazy person stabs a dozen people at a public place? Knives aren't the problem. It's only when guns are involved that suddenly the tool used and number of lives lost becomes important.
Because their agenda is gun control/gun confiscation.:)
 
Gun violence must be extremely low in those examples then. Why doesn't the anti gun crowd point to such examples as proof strict gun control is a good thing?
Because they don't want to let out of the bag their true affection for Communism.
 
Funny Bass Pro Shop, Cabella's Nation Wide sporting goods do not stock so-called Assult Weapons!

Made up names by ID10Ts that know nothing about Firearms!
 
Back
Top