Lefty Remedial Education 103; What a Freaking Assault Weapon Actually Is

[Rustic]

It is a mind cringing fact to realize that our Republics loudest voices on the gun issue are such idiotic ignoramuses that they dont know what the hell an assault rifle is.

It is even worse when their supposed opposition party gives in and uses the same erroneous bullshit terms inaccurately as the Gun Grabbing Nazis do.

So here is a little article to help the goose stepping leftwing idiots to get their shit straight.

Not that facts have ever slowed them down at all.

What Is an 'Assault Weapon?' - Breitbart

What is an “assault weapon?”
Is it a gun that shoots a certain round? Say a .223 or a 5.56? Or is a gun that has a flashlight on it? What about a laser or an aftermarket grip, or a heat shield, or flash hider?

Does the term “assault weapon” only apply to black guns? Or can an “assault weapon” be white or green or red or brown or camouflage? Can it be pink?

Does an “assault weapon” use magazines or does it use what Sen. Tim Kaine called “ammunition clips?” After all, President Obama recently described the Glock handgun Omar Mateen carried in Pulse Orlando as a gun that “had a lot of clips in it.”

Is a clip like a bullet or do Kaine and Obama simply not understand firearm basics?

Here’s the point: “assault weapons” is a made up term that applies to whatever best serves Democrats who are pushing gun control at any given time. After all, the New York Times reports that the term “assault weapons” is a “myth” Democrats created in the 1990s.

And according to the NYT, the “myth” came into play when the Democrats — who were eager to find a scapegoat for escalating crime in the early 1990s — created a “politically defined category of guns” they could then demonize and ban. They subsequently achieved an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and it lasted until 2004. And when today’s Democrats appeal to that ban as one that should be re-instituted, they prove they understand little about it.

For starters, the 1994 did not ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned cosmetic features that Democrats consider part and parcel to “assault weapons.”

To put it another way, the 1994 ban did not ban AR-15s in general. Rather, it banned flash hiders, certain fore stocks and grips, collapsible and folding rear stocks, “high capacity” magazines, etc. It banned things that made the gun look like the scary guns Democrats think about when they think about an “assault weapon.” But it did nothing to change or ban the actual gun.

The author of the above article is correct that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term, but "assault rifle" has been around since WW2 and was used exclusively for rifles capable of firing small arms ammo in full auto mode, i.e. what most libtards would call a "machine gun".

That was an assault rifle, but todays AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but merely a lower cost rifle that uses cheap and easily available military components.

If you have ever priced Walnut wood stocks and compared them to the cost of plastic stocks you would understand why the military wanted the cheaper plastic, and the color was black to suppress light reflection, a bad thing on the battlefield.

So I hope this helps you libtards out there to understand that not every rifle that has those mean ole military kind of looking components makes them an "assault weapon". Calling them such only makes you look stupid, as if that were even needed.

49 dead and over 50 injured in one mass shooting with one shooter,and the right is still babbling about definitions. Call the gun what you want, it sure is a weapon for mass killing.

Na, not really.
You do know that a "gun" needs someone aiming and pulling the trigger for it to go bang??

Yes and the more times you can pull that trigger without being slowed by a reload the more you can kill. 49 dead and over 50 injured.

...A gay Muslim killed and injured all those people.

 

[Brain357]

It is a mind cringing fact to realize that our Republics loudest voices on the gun issue are such idiotic ignoramuses that they dont know what the hell an assault rifle is.

It is even worse when their supposed opposition party gives in and uses the same erroneous bullshit terms inaccurately as the Gun Grabbing Nazis do.

So here is a little article to help the goose stepping leftwing idiots to get their shit straight.

Not that facts have ever slowed them down at all.

What Is an 'Assault Weapon?' - Breitbart

What is an “assault weapon?”
Is it a gun that shoots a certain round? Say a .223 or a 5.56? Or is a gun that has a flashlight on it? What about a laser or an aftermarket grip, or a heat shield, or flash hider?

Does the term “assault weapon” only apply to black guns? Or can an “assault weapon” be white or green or red or brown or camouflage? Can it be pink?

Does an “assault weapon” use magazines or does it use what Sen. Tim Kaine called “ammunition clips?” After all, President Obama recently described the Glock handgun Omar Mateen carried in Pulse Orlando as a gun that “had a lot of clips in it.”

Is a clip like a bullet or do Kaine and Obama simply not understand firearm basics?

Here’s the point: “assault weapons” is a made up term that applies to whatever best serves Democrats who are pushing gun control at any given time. After all, the New York Times reports that the term “assault weapons” is a “myth” Democrats created in the 1990s.

And according to the NYT, the “myth” came into play when the Democrats — who were eager to find a scapegoat for escalating crime in the early 1990s — created a “politically defined category of guns” they could then demonize and ban. They subsequently achieved an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and it lasted until 2004. And when today’s Democrats appeal to that ban as one that should be re-instituted, they prove they understand little about it.

For starters, the 1994 did not ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned cosmetic features that Democrats consider part and parcel to “assault weapons.”

To put it another way, the 1994 ban did not ban AR-15s in general. Rather, it banned flash hiders, certain fore stocks and grips, collapsible and folding rear stocks, “high capacity” magazines, etc. It banned things that made the gun look like the scary guns Democrats think about when they think about an “assault weapon.” But it did nothing to change or ban the actual gun.

The author of the above article is correct that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term, but "assault rifle" has been around since WW2 and was used exclusively for rifles capable of firing small arms ammo in full auto mode, i.e. what most libtards would call a "machine gun".

That was an assault rifle, but todays AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but merely a lower cost rifle that uses cheap and easily available military components.

If you have ever priced Walnut wood stocks and compared them to the cost of plastic stocks you would understand why the military wanted the cheaper plastic, and the color was black to suppress light reflection, a bad thing on the battlefield.

So I hope this helps you libtards out there to understand that not every rifle that has those mean ole military kind of looking components makes them an "assault weapon". Calling them such only makes you look stupid, as if that were even needed.

49 dead and over 50 injured in one mass shooting with one shooter,and the right is still babbling about definitions. Call the gun what you want, it sure is a weapon for mass killing.

Na, not really.
You do know that a "gun" needs someone aiming and pulling the trigger for it to go bang??

Yes and the more times you can pull that trigger without being slowed by a reload the more you can kill. 49 dead and over 50 injured.

...A gay Muslim killed and injured all those people.

With a very dangerous, legally bought weapon for mass killing.

 

[Moonglow]

I hunt varmints with dogs and a Bowie knife...I have no idea what a varmit is...

 

[Rustic]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Varmit hunting...

What a hero. Many innocent people killed and you are concerned about varmints. Ah the gun nut turds.

Anti-gun nutters as yourself will never realize more laws will never stop criminal behavior, just make it more prevalent…

 

[Conservative65]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

I am an independant. I own guns, but am not such a selfish and scared turd that I demand hi cap mags I'll never need while killers use them to slaughter people.

You speak like the Liberals on this issue.

So, you think you know why people want such things. You're a turd for thinking that you do.

 

[Rustic]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Varmit hunting...

No one should be taking any advice from a progressive of what anyone "needs" or "don't need"...
Control freaks speak only in hyperbole…

Well give some examples of defenders needing a hi cap mag. We can debate if there truly is a need.

It's a right...

 

[Brain357]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Varmit hunting...

What a hero. Many innocent people killed and you are concerned about varmints. Ah the gun nut turds.

Anti-gun nutters as yourself will never realize more laws will never stop criminal behavior, just make it more prevalent…

So gun nuts think legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea. Orlando says it is a real bad idea.

 

[Rustic]

It is a mind cringing fact to realize that our Republics loudest voices on the gun issue are such idiotic ignoramuses that they dont know what the hell an assault rifle is.

It is even worse when their supposed opposition party gives in and uses the same erroneous bullshit terms inaccurately as the Gun Grabbing Nazis do.

So here is a little article to help the goose stepping leftwing idiots to get their shit straight.

Not that facts have ever slowed them down at all.

What Is an 'Assault Weapon?' - Breitbart

What is an “assault weapon?”
Is it a gun that shoots a certain round? Say a .223 or a 5.56? Or is a gun that has a flashlight on it? What about a laser or an aftermarket grip, or a heat shield, or flash hider?

Does the term “assault weapon” only apply to black guns? Or can an “assault weapon” be white or green or red or brown or camouflage? Can it be pink?

Does an “assault weapon” use magazines or does it use what Sen. Tim Kaine called “ammunition clips?” After all, President Obama recently described the Glock handgun Omar Mateen carried in Pulse Orlando as a gun that “had a lot of clips in it.”

Is a clip like a bullet or do Kaine and Obama simply not understand firearm basics?

Here’s the point: “assault weapons” is a made up term that applies to whatever best serves Democrats who are pushing gun control at any given time. After all, the New York Times reports that the term “assault weapons” is a “myth” Democrats created in the 1990s.

And according to the NYT, the “myth” came into play when the Democrats — who were eager to find a scapegoat for escalating crime in the early 1990s — created a “politically defined category of guns” they could then demonize and ban. They subsequently achieved an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and it lasted until 2004. And when today’s Democrats appeal to that ban as one that should be re-instituted, they prove they understand little about it.

For starters, the 1994 did not ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned cosmetic features that Democrats consider part and parcel to “assault weapons.”

To put it another way, the 1994 ban did not ban AR-15s in general. Rather, it banned flash hiders, certain fore stocks and grips, collapsible and folding rear stocks, “high capacity” magazines, etc. It banned things that made the gun look like the scary guns Democrats think about when they think about an “assault weapon.” But it did nothing to change or ban the actual gun.

The author of the above article is correct that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term, but "assault rifle" has been around since WW2 and was used exclusively for rifles capable of firing small arms ammo in full auto mode, i.e. what most libtards would call a "machine gun".

That was an assault rifle, but todays AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but merely a lower cost rifle that uses cheap and easily available military components.

If you have ever priced Walnut wood stocks and compared them to the cost of plastic stocks you would understand why the military wanted the cheaper plastic, and the color was black to suppress light reflection, a bad thing on the battlefield.

So I hope this helps you libtards out there to understand that not every rifle that has those mean ole military kind of looking components makes them an "assault weapon". Calling them such only makes you look stupid, as if that were even needed.

49 dead and over 50 injured in one mass shooting with one shooter,and the right is still babbling about definitions. Call the gun what you want, it sure is a weapon for mass killing.

Na, not really.
You do know that a "gun" needs someone aiming and pulling the trigger for it to go bang??

Yes and the more times you can pull that trigger without being slowed by a reload the more you can kill. 49 dead and over 50 injured.

...A gay Muslim killed and injured all those people.

With a very dangerous, legally bought weapon for mass killing.

A bomb would have been just as bad... Probably worse

 

[Conservative65]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

Okay. TY for letting me know.

FWIW, the personal pronoun "you" would have made clear your intent and stopped me from remarking on it.

Oh, you think it's your place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.​

Despite what folks often think, most readers are lousy at reading writers' minds. That's true of me too. I'm an excellent reader and writer of what one writes, but a woefully inadequate mind reader.

ShitforBrains357 thinks he can read minds. He responded to me claiming that the reason people wanted high capacity magazines was because they were selfish and scared.

 

[Brain357]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

I am an independant. I own guns, but am not such a selfish and scared turd that I demand hi cap mags I'll never need while killers use them to slaughter people.

You speak like the Liberals on this issue.

So, you think you know why people want such things. You're a turd for thinking that you do.

Where are your examples of them being needed for defense?

 

[Conservative65]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Varmit hunting...

What a hero. Many innocent people killed and you are concerned about varmints. Ah the gun nut turds.

Anti-gun nutters as yourself will never realize more laws will never stop criminal behavior, just make it more prevalent…

So gun nuts think legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea. Orlando says it is a real bad idea.

Seems the idiots that believe like you think more laws will prevent what current laws can't do.

 

[Brain357]

49 dead and over 50 injured in one mass shooting with one shooter,and the right is still babbling about definitions. Call the gun what you want, it sure is a weapon for mass killing.

Na, not really.
You do know that a "gun" needs someone aiming and pulling the trigger for it to go bang??

Yes and the more times you can pull that trigger without being slowed by a reload the more you can kill. 49 dead and over 50 injured.

...A gay Muslim killed and injured all those people.

With a very dangerous, legally bought weapon for mass killing.

A bomb would have been just as bad... Probably worse

And illegal to make. So he might have been caught before killing people. Or he might have accidently blown himself up. You just love making it easy for him though.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

I am an independant. I own guns, but am not such a selfish and scared turd that I demand hi cap mags I'll never need while killers use them to slaughter people.

You speak like the Liberals on this issue.

So, you think you know why people want such things. You're a turd for thinking that you do.

Where are your examples of them being needed for defense?

Examples don't need to be provided when the question asking for them falls into the category of what someone does/doesn't need isn't any of your business.

 

[Rustic]

I hunt varmints with dogs and a Bowie knife...I have no idea what a varmit is...

 

[Brain357]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Varmit hunting...

What a hero. Many innocent people killed and you are concerned about varmints. Ah the gun nut turds.

Anti-gun nutters as yourself will never realize more laws will never stop criminal behavior, just make it more prevalent…

So gun nuts think legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea. Orlando says it is a real bad idea.

Seems the idiots that believe like you think more laws will prevent what current laws can't do.

Well Orlando shows the results of what you believe. Great call.

 

[Conservative65]

Na, not really.
You do know that a "gun" needs someone aiming and pulling the trigger for it to go bang??

Yes and the more times you can pull that trigger without being slowed by a reload the more you can kill. 49 dead and over 50 injured.

...A gay Muslim killed and injured all those people.

With a very dangerous, legally bought weapon for mass killing.

A bomb would have been just as bad... Probably worse

And illegal to make. So he might have been caught before killing people. Or he might have accidently blown himself up. You just love making it easy for him though.

Do you realize that bombs having the ability to kill far more than the things you want to restrict can be made using things the average person has underneath his/her kitchen sink?

 

[Moonglow]

I hunt varmints with dogs and a Bowie knife...I have no idea what a varmit is...

No prairie dogs here in the foothills of the Ozarks...I merely was showing you that you spelled varmints incorrectly....

 

[Brain357]

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

I am an independant. I own guns, but am not such a selfish and scared turd that I demand hi cap mags I'll never need while killers use them to slaughter people.

You speak like the Liberals on this issue.

So, you think you know why people want such things. You're a turd for thinking that you do.

Where are your examples of them being needed for defense?

Examples don't need to be provided when the question asking for them falls into the category of what someone does/doesn't need isn't any of your business.

So you have no examples of anyone needing one for defense. So you have no reason to believe they are needed. Yet mass killers use them to kill so many. Yes you are selfish.

 

[320 Years of History]

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

I am an independant. I own guns, but am not such a selfish and scared turd that I demand hi cap mags I'll never need while killers use them to slaughter people.

You speak like the Liberals on this issue.

So, you think you know why people want such things. You're a turd for thinking that you do.

High capacity magazines should be banned. Nobody needs a hi cap mag for defense, but mass shooters sure love them.

Oh, another Liberal that thinks it's his place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.

Determining what others need, don't need, should need, should do, etc. isn't a cognitive activity performed exclusively by liberals or conservatives.

Since ShitforBrains is a Liberal, it applies to him and was directed only toward him.

Okay. TY for letting me know.

FWIW, the personal pronoun "you" would have made clear your intent and stopped me from remarking on it.

Oh, you think it's your place to determine what someone else needs and doesn't need.​

Despite what folks often think, most readers are lousy at reading writers' minds. That's true of me too. I'm an excellent reader and writer of what one writes, but a woefully inadequate mind reader.

ShitforBrains357 thinks he can read minds. He responded to me claiming that the reason people wanted high capacity magazines was because they were selfish and scared.

Fine. I saw the post I saw and commented on it. You clarified that you were referring expressly to him and not making a remark about liberals in general, and that's enough for me. I'll take your word for it. I don't have any interest in getting into y'all's "back and forth" about each other's thoughts and intent. I see your more recent comment that does use personal pronouns indicating that you are referring to him, and I know that means I don't need or want to participate in the discussion.

 

[Conservative65]

Varmit hunting...

What a hero. Many innocent people killed and you are concerned about varmints. Ah the gun nut turds.

Anti-gun nutters as yourself will never realize more laws will never stop criminal behavior, just make it more prevalent…

So gun nuts think legally arming killers with guns for mass killing is a good idea. Orlando says it is a real bad idea.

Seems the idiots that believe like you think more laws will prevent what current laws can't do.

Well Orlando shows the results of what you believe. Great call.

Until Orlando, the deadliest mass shooting was at VA Tech and it was with handguns.