Elementary school shooting

I gave you many chances to answer your own question Nosmo. Now I will answer. I didn't up til now, because I wanted to just get to your stupid answer.

An assault weapon's PRIMARY purpose is to supress an enemy. By delivering a large number of rounds down range, the enemy is forced to take defensive positions. This allows other troops to engage the enemy with sniper fire, grenades and other weapons to wound, kill or force a retreat of the enemy.

Thank you. Are the virtues you described so important that such weapons should be in the hands of civilians? Have civilians enemies to suppress? Do civilians have the need to deliver large numbers of rounds down range?

Should America be forced to accommodate such weapons by arming school personnel, posting armed guards in stadiums and arenas? Why should America be forced to make room for such weapons if civilians don't require them? Is the privilege to own such a weapon greater than everyone else's right to live free in a world not threatened by them?
 
Last edited:
I view city dwelling progressive nut jobs as enemies, and if they ever come to my house and attempt to take anything from me, I will shoot them.

That's my primary motivation for wanting to keep my right to bear arms.

Well, that and I want to be able to kill the shit out of any criminal who tries to enter my house.

The two groups are pretty much one and the same.
 
Yep, the answer is to SUPRESS the enemy.

They are a light caliber weapon. You can't deliver a round that does much through light armor. That would be the 50 caliber. You can't selectively hit an enemy at a great distance. Sniper rifle.

An assault weapon is used by special ops to supress the enemy. Many members of the group carry other types of weapons. Ever wonder why?
 
I gave you many chances to answer your own question Nosmo. Now I will answer. I didn't up til now, because I wanted to just get to your stupid answer.

An assault weapon's PRIMARY purpose is to supress an enemy. By delivering a large number of rounds down range, the enemy is forced to take defensive positions. This allows other troops to engage the enemy with sniper fire, grenades and other weapons to wound, kill or force a retreat of the enemy.

Thank you. Are the virtues you described so important that such weapons should be in the hands of civilians? Have civilians enemies to suppress? Do civilians have the need to deliver large numbers of rounds down range?

Should America be forced to accommodate such weapons by arming school personnel, posting armed guards in stadiums and arenas? Why should America be forced to make room for such weapons if civilians don't require them? Is the privilege to own such a weapon greater than everyone else's right to live free in a world not threatened by them?

The 2010 shooting took place at around 3:15PM MST on February 23, 2010, when 32-year-old Bruco Eastwood entered Deer Creek Middle School. After being stopped by custodian Kyle Sturbaum he checked in at the office asked for a tour, was denied, and then left. After the SRO had left and school had ended for the day, he took a bolt action high-powered hunting rifle from his car in the school parking lot, and then opened fire, wounding one female eighth grade student and one male eighth grade student. The male was rushed to a hospital and was in critical condition for about four days. The female was released from a hospital later on that night after the shooting occurred. The shooter was taken down by Deer Creek Middle School math teachers David Benke and Norm Hanne and was taken into custody by the police

Deer Creek Middle School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yep, the answer is to SUPRESS the enemy.

They are a light caliber weapon. You can't deliver a round that does much through light armor. That would be the 50 caliber. You can't selectively hit an enemy at a great distance. Sniper rifle.

An assault weapon is used by special ops to supress the enemy. Many members of the group carry other types of weapons. Ever wonder why?
Have you ever wondered why the tie that binds mass shooters is the assault weapon?
 
Swing and a miss. What specifically was the assault rifle designed to do?

Your answer could apply to the Golden Retriever.

It would depend on the specific model we are talking about, but, in general, they are designed to use a portion of the gas from an explosion to propel a projectile down the barrel and use as much as possible of the rest to cycle the arming mechanism to bring another cartridge into position to be fired. This latter function is why semi automatic weapons are considered to be less powerful than older bolt action weapons.

Why do you ask?
You described the actions of a semi auitomatic firing system. You did not answer the question which I now pose for a sixth time (it's getting tedious): What specifically was the assault rifle designed to do?

That is what they are designed to do, even if you want to pretend otherwise.
 
Actually, the evasions offered up by you and others is quite telling. It appears that you are afraid to confront the truth and keep throwing up nonsensical answers in the hope the question will just go away.

What was the assault rifle specifically designed to do?

...and I am certain you don't know the difference between a design and use. I have no fear of your answer. Just puzzled why you can't give an answer to your own question.
I am trying to understand the virtue of the assault weapon. Why America should be forced to accommodate such weapons rather than take the sensible step and eliminate them. Someone, most gun nuts for my money, seems to love these weapons more than freedom and life itself. I'm wondering if such gun nuts are capable of forming a reasonable answer to my simple question which I now pose for a seventh time:

What was the assault rifle specifically designed to do?

You cannot legally buy an assault rifle in the US unless you have a special license issued by the federal government. How, exactly, are we forced to accommodate them?
 
I gave you many chances to answer your own question Nosmo. Now I will answer. I didn't up til now, because I wanted to just get to your stupid answer.

An assault weapon's PRIMARY purpose is to supress an enemy. By delivering a large number of rounds down range, the enemy is forced to take defensive positions. This allows other troops to engage the enemy with sniper fire, grenades and other weapons to wound, kill or force a retreat of the enemy.

Thank you. Are the virtues you described so important that such weapons should be in the hands of civilians? Have civilians enemies to suppress? Do civilians have the need to deliver large numbers of rounds down range?

Should America be forced to accommodate such weapons by arming school personnel, posting armed guards in stadiums and arenas? Why should America be forced to make room for such weapons if civilians don't require them? Is the privilege to own such a weapon greater than everyone else's right to live free in a world not threatened by them?

Yes, protection is very important and since criminals and tyrrants rarely care what the law is, a necessary part of some people's right to be protected. The possibility of your right being lost is not grounds for terminating the rights of others. Imposing your will on others is not a right you hold.

Take the bank robbery in LA several years ago as a case study. The police had to go to a gun store in order to stop them. Now you want to take those very weapons away from everyone, except the criminals. This is the real world, not Nosmo fantasyland.
 
I'm sorry, but you did not answer the question. Some rifles are designed to practice target shooting. Some of those rifles include sophisticated design element such as the rifles used in the Olympic sport of Biathlon. Other riffs were specifically designed as sniper rifles. Others were designed to bag a specific variety of game (see an elephant gun or deer rifle).

But assault rifles were designed with specific uses in mind.

What specifically was the assault rifle designed to do?

All rifles were designed for 1 purpose....get real Nosmo.
If that were true, all rifles would be designed the same.

What specifically was the assault rifle designed to do?

They are all designed the same.
 
Yep, the answer is to SUPRESS the enemy.

They are a light caliber weapon. You can't deliver a round that does much through light armor. That would be the 50 caliber. You can't selectively hit an enemy at a great distance. Sniper rifle.

An assault weapon is used by special ops to supress the enemy. Many members of the group carry other types of weapons. Ever wonder why?
Have you ever wondered why the tie that binds mass shooters is the assault weapon?

It doesn't bind them. You choose to selectively pick cases.
 
When it comes to weapons, the enemy is always in pursuit of the best weapon. That never changes.

What you can change is identifying your enemy and neutralizing them before an attack. We have mentally ill people who are violent and have access to weapons. Find them and monitor them.
 
By the way idiot, an assault weapon is NOT DESIGNED to kill unarmed citizens, particularly children.
 
I gave you many chances to answer your own question Nosmo. Now I will answer. I didn't up til now, because I wanted to just get to your stupid answer.

An assault weapon's PRIMARY purpose is to supress an enemy. By delivering a large number of rounds down range, the enemy is forced to take defensive positions. This allows other troops to engage the enemy with sniper fire, grenades and other weapons to wound, kill or force a retreat of the enemy.

Thank you. Are the virtues you described so important that such weapons should be in the hands of civilians? Have civilians enemies to suppress? Do civilians have the need to deliver large numbers of rounds down range?

Should America be forced to accommodate such weapons by arming school personnel, posting armed guards in stadiums and arenas? Why should America be forced to make room for such weapons if civilians don't require them? Is the privilege to own such a weapon greater than everyone else's right to live free in a world not threatened by them?

Yes, protection is very important and since criminals and tyrrants rarely care what the law is, a necessary part of some people's right to be protected. The possibility of your right being lost is not grounds for terminating the rights of others. Imposing your will on others is not a right you hold.

Take the bank robbery in LA several years ago as a case study. The police had to go to a gun store in order to stop them. Now you want to take those very weapons away from everyone, except the criminals. This is the real world, not Nosmo fantasyland.
You imposed the words "except criminals". Why do you imagine that?

And protection at any means is not protection but an open invitation to abuse the capabilities of the weapon. Take them away from everyone. EVERYONE and the scourge of assault;t weapons evaporates the way logic at an NRA convention evaporates.
 
Yep, the answer is to SUPRESS the enemy.

They are a light caliber weapon. You can't deliver a round that does much through light armor. That would be the 50 caliber. You can't selectively hit an enemy at a great distance. Sniper rifle.

An assault weapon is used by special ops to supress the enemy. Many members of the group carry other types of weapons. Ever wonder why?
Have you ever wondered why the tie that binds mass shooters is the assault weapon?

It doesn't bind them. You choose to selectively pick cases.
Please cite a mass shooting that did not include an assault weapon.
 
Protect and defend did I stutter?
The key word is 'specifically'. Should I define 'specifically' for you?

You could define assault weapon. I can assault with many different weapons from a rock to a missile...
You have a reasonable expectation that I'm asking about assault rifles and handguns. Why not just give an honest answer instead of the ham handed picking fly shit out of ground pepper? Does the truth about assault rifles and handguns awash on our streets give you pause, or is that a point of pride? Have the massive numbers of specifically designed assault weapons provided a benefit to society, or has it made our world a more dangerous place. Is there a legitimate use for civilians armed with assault weapons, or are those weapons best kept safely in the hands of a well regulated militia? Are the lives of innocents merely to be tallied as the price of freedom, or should we stop killing each other with these weapons and man up and eliminate them from our midst?
 

Forum List

Back
Top