I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.
To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.
What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.
So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propaganda?
As you all know, when you take this rifle
add a black stock with a pistol grip, a rail and an ACOG the bullets suddenly become incendiary, exploding, heat seeking missiles of mass murder. On top of that anyone who has never had their hands on a rifle before instantly becomes a top tier marksman inflamed with hatred for mankind at large.:roll:
And for those who still don't understand, both pictures show the same model rifle. Both rifles function exactly the same way. The differences are primarily cosmetic. It's kind of like putting new rims, a paint job and a racing seat in your 2005 Celica without touching the motor and suspension.
I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.
To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.
What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.
So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.
To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.
What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.
So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
How is medium everything a combat weapons? The weapon was chosen by the military because it was versatile, not because it was superior at anything. Soldiers can not have 4 weapons and all the ammo with them when they can be issued a jack of all trades master of none weapon.
Most of the militaries effectiveness with the weapon is through training, a bolt action 3006 has more range, accuracy and stopping power, a shotgun would actually kill more people close range, a handgun is more concealable, etc. It was chosen because it could be adapted, not because it is some superior killing machine.
I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons. To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban. What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military. The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo. So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.
To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.
What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.
So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?
I have done a thread like this before quite a while ago, but it is long buried and there is a renewed hyteria over assault weapons.
To clarify, assault weapons are a made up term, to describe weapons with a military appearance. Assault rifles are either fully auto or have select fire capability, like semi and burst or auto and semi. Assault rifles are not legal to the public except preban.
What is deemed assault weapons are semi automatic rifles with cosmetic features, like a collapsable stock, a pistol grip, or detachable magazine. Despite hysterical belief, assault rifles and weapons were not designed to kill as many people as fast as possible, they do not just mow people down in the military.
The choice for the assault rifle was medium firepower, medium accuracy, medium weight, and medium rounds meant more rounds to carry over heavy rounds, as combat was unpredictable, and less weight equals more moblity. It is a jack of all trades master of none, which the military favors since one rifle can do it all even if not as efficient as other rifles, since no soldier wants to carry 4 weapons and 4 sets of ammo.
So what is the big stink against these rifles, is there any evidence they are so much more deadly than hunting rifles, or pure propoganda?
What is rapid? Every trigger pull?
What semi-auto can't receive 30 rd mags?
I smell ignorance...
Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?
I was not referring to rights, I was referring to need.I don't have to prove a need. Constitutional right.
If you want to infringe on it, YOU have to prove societal necessity, and that said ban would actually achieve a worthwhile result.
Which isn't happening. If banning a firearm prevents it from being used in mass slaughter, explain the automatic rifles used in the Charlie Hebdo shooting, which were illegal in France and most of surrounding Western Europe.
Explain how this is necessary to society when the following is true...
View attachment 67203007
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?
I was not referring to rights, I was referring to need.
Well, you said it yourself:
They are combat weapons. Terrorists in this country use them for combat.
how many lies are you going to spew on this issue They are not combat weapons. Terrorist attacks on unarmed civilians is not combat.
The bannerrhoid movement is impervious to reality or the truth. Its a waste of time trying to edify a group that is based upon lies and disinformation
So what?Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?
Nope- 30 rd mags, what is the need?
What is the need for the standard capacity mag? In a free country, must a man need a thing in order to own it?
You have a slave's mentality.
I asked you before to tell me what makes one of these an assault weapon and I still await a reply.. View attachment 67203004View attachment 67203005
I will even help you out... .
They both fire the same cartridge and both use the same magazine...again, why would one be called an assault weapon or weapon of war? Double dog dare you...
Rapid fire, 30 rd mags?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?