This Republican has got it right.

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

In the gun manufacturing industry, an "assault rifle" is defined as a weapon with an intermediate-size round and select-fire.

The term comes from the German word Sturmgewehr from the Sturmgewehr-44 (see below) which literally translates as "storm rifle" but translates as "assault rifle." This is the original "assault rifle":

This weapon combined the capabilities of longer-range, semi-auto a battle rifle use in open-field combat, and a full-auto, pistol-caliber submachine gun.


Gewehr 41:

mp40

The word "assault" is only relevant based on the name of the German hybrid Sturmwegehr 44.

Thanks to the Hughes Amendment, no civilian can purchase a new "assault rifle."

"Assault weapon" is a bullshit term created by ignorant, chicken-shit gun grabbers to inspire fear by making a false distinction.

 

[OKTexas]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

One is the M-16 for the military.

The other is the commercial version of the M-16 for maga infested militia wannabes.

Wrong again commie, the M-16 was an upgraded version of the civilian AR platform. The civilian version was being sold for about 5 years before the military widely accepted the military version. Ya know there's a cure for your ignorance, I'm not so sure about a cure for your commie indoctrination though.

.

I sleep peacefully at night now that you have admitted to being an idiot.

The AR-15 is basically the civilian counterpart to the M16. The AR-15 came first, in 1947; the M16 a decade later. They have the same magazine capacity: 30 rounds.

Wrong again commie, ArmaLite the company that developed the "AR" (which stands for ArmaLite BTW) didn't exist till 1954. But hey, feel free to keep making shit up, you're just proving yourself to be a liar.

.

I'm not letting facts get in the way. I'm posting them. YOU'RE the liar trying to live in alternative reality.

A Brief History Of The AR-15​

Here's a quick history lesson on why AR-15 has become the umbrella term for a range of semi-automatic rifles made by a host of gun makers. "AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16. Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15. When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other manufacturers began making similar models. Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style rifles.

Enjoy

I'm not going to waste much time on your commie ass, but what happened to your lie that AR-15 came first in 1947? Wouldn't that be fucking magical since the company that invented it wasn't formed till 1954? Well at least you cured a portion of your ignorance. LMAO

Now to prove what I said was accurate.

Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Readers respond to James Fallows

www.theatlantic.com

.

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

At my school many students had guns in the trunk of their car so that they could go hunting when school let out. It is still that way today. In fact, the school board approved just such a scenario. In this part of the country the first thing the local boy scout troop does is take the scouts on a coon hunt and then they make coonskin caps. And if you keep loaded guns in your house you are just STUPID. And honestly, you have no business in this thread because you are doing more to support my arguments than your own.

Name the school, location and the year. And when it's just myself and my wife in the house, there's no problem having loaded guns.

.

Fred T Foard, every year.

 

[otto105]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

One is the M-16 for the military.

The other is the commercial version of the M-16 for maga infested militia wannabes.

Wrong again commie, the M-16 was an upgraded version of the civilian AR platform. The civilian version was being sold for about 5 years before the military widely accepted the military version. Ya know there's a cure for your ignorance, I'm not so sure about a cure for your commie indoctrination though.

.

I sleep peacefully at night now that you have admitted to being an idiot.

The AR-15 is basically the civilian counterpart to the M16. The AR-15 came first, in 1947; the M16 a decade later. They have the same magazine capacity: 30 rounds.

Wrong again commie, ArmaLite the company that developed the "AR" (which stands for ArmaLite BTW) didn't exist till 1954. But hey, feel free to keep making shit up, you're just proving yourself to be a liar.

.

I'm not letting facts get in the way. I'm posting them. YOU'RE the liar trying to live in alternative reality.

A Brief History Of The AR-15​

Here's a quick history lesson on why AR-15 has become the umbrella term for a range of semi-automatic rifles made by a host of gun makers. "AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16. Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15. When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other manufacturers began making similar models. Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style rifles.

Enjoy

I'm not going to waste much time on your commie ass, but what happened to your lie that AR-15 came first in 1947? Wouldn't that be fucking magical since the company that invented it wasn't formed till 1954? Well at least you cured a portion of your ignorance. LMAO

Now to prove what I said was accurate.

Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Readers respond to James Fallows

www.theatlantic.com

.

What your post article reinforces is that the AR-15 was designed as a military weapon.

 

[Auld Phart]

otto105 Have a link for your cut and paste

 

[Winston]

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

At my school many students had guns in the trunk of their car so that they could go hunting when school let out. It is still that way today. In fact, the school board approved just such a scenario. In this part of the country the first thing the local boy scout troop does is take the scouts on a coon hunt and then they make coonskin caps. And if you keep loaded guns in your house you are just STUPID. And honestly, you have no business in this thread because you are doing more to support my arguments than your own.

Name the school, location and the year. And when it's just myself and my wife in the house, there's no problem having loaded guns.

.

Winston still hunts coons, but only the ones that try to leave the Democrat party

Well now, like when the smeller is the feller, I believe we have found our racist, the one calling everyone else a racist.

 

[otto105]

otto105 Have a link for your cut and paste

nothing

 

[OKTexas]

What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?

One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?

One is the M-16 for the military.

The other is the commercial version of the M-16 for maga infested militia wannabes.

Wrong again commie, the M-16 was an upgraded version of the civilian AR platform. The civilian version was being sold for about 5 years before the military widely accepted the military version. Ya know there's a cure for your ignorance, I'm not so sure about a cure for your commie indoctrination though.

.

I sleep peacefully at night now that you have admitted to being an idiot.

The AR-15 is basically the civilian counterpart to the M16. The AR-15 came first, in 1947; the M16 a decade later. They have the same magazine capacity: 30 rounds.

Wrong again commie, ArmaLite the company that developed the "AR" (which stands for ArmaLite BTW) didn't exist till 1954. But hey, feel free to keep making shit up, you're just proving yourself to be a liar.

.

I'm not letting facts get in the way. I'm posting them. YOU'RE the liar trying to live in alternative reality.

A Brief History Of The AR-15​

Here's a quick history lesson on why AR-15 has become the umbrella term for a range of semi-automatic rifles made by a host of gun makers. "AR" comes from the name of the gun's original manufacturer, ArmaLite, Inc. The letters stand for ArmaLite Rifle — and not for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle." ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16. Armed with that success, Colt ramped up production of a semiautomatic version of the M-16 that it sold to law enforcement and the public, marketed as the AR-15. When Colt's patents for the AR-15 expired in the 1970s, other manufacturers began making similar models. Those gun makers gave the weapons their own names, yet the popularity of the AR-15 turned it into a generic term for all types of AR-15-style rifles.

Enjoy

I'm not going to waste much time on your commie ass, but what happened to your lie that AR-15 came first in 1947? Wouldn't that be fucking magical since the company that invented it wasn't formed till 1954? Well at least you cured a portion of your ignorance. LMAO

Now to prove what I said was accurate.

Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Readers respond to James Fallows

www.theatlantic.com

.

What your post article reinforces is that the AR-15 was designed as a military weapon.

And that alters the fact that the civilian AR was being sold for 5 years before the military widely adopted it, HOW? Also the specs for the military version are much different than the civilian version. So you can keep pretending there's no difference between the two and you'd still be WRONG. LMAO

.

 

[OKTexas]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

At my school many students had guns in the trunk of their car so that they could go hunting when school let out. It is still that way today. In fact, the school board approved just such a scenario. In this part of the country the first thing the local boy scout troop does is take the scouts on a coon hunt and then they make coonskin caps. And if you keep loaded guns in your house you are just STUPID. And honestly, you have no business in this thread because you are doing more to support my arguments than your own.

Name the school, location and the year. And when it's just myself and my wife in the house, there's no problem having loaded guns.

.

Fred T Foard, every year.

And the location is?

.

 

[Winston]

OK, Creep. Let's walk through that.

So government takes legal guns from non-criminal gun owners.

Where is the part that makes you safer? You thought honest citizens were the ones shooting at you?

First, they aren't confiscating all guns, but instead cutting down on the numbers. With fewer guns, the owner actually becomes more responsible. As OkTex said, he keeps all his guns loaded. The fewer that number, the safer people in his house (like visiting children) are.

Also since 7% of crimes with guns were traced to guns acquired during a burglary. The fewer guns in peoples hands the fewer guns to fall into criminal hands.

You lying mother fucker, I never said I keep "all" my guns loaded, and children don't come to my house. Any more lies you want of fucking dream up?

.

Winston has never touched a gun before. If he saw one he would cry. He lives in a loft in SoHo and drinks white wine spritzers. He and his friends say "gun," poke each other and giggle like school girls. So he measures everything on that scale. Say you keep your gun safely loaded in case you need it urgently and he hears that you're shooting bazookas into your street

Actually, I have yet heard anyone say a damn thing about the Appleseed Project. I mean I bet you morons don't even know who Daniel Morgan was. The really funny part, most you gun supporters are walking, talking, advocates for gun control. Keeping loaded guns around the house, one for the purpose of killing "gophers" in his garden. I mean I laughed my ass off. The best way to take out groundhogs is with a small caliber rifle at about 200 yards. Which is about 180 yards further than any of you nutcases can handle.

Yeah, I hunt. I mean HUNT. No ambushing deer. Not surrounding a plowed under field of beans to ambush dove. Nope, I hunt, with dogs. It is what real men do. In fact, the Gods placed dogs on this earth for the express purpose of hunting, and teaching men leadership. It is called Cynegeticus. And for generations, that is what my family has done, to great effect. If you can effectively run a pack of rabbit dogs, well you can sure as hell run a group of workers.

I mean why the hell do you think the Boy Scouts take the troop on a coon hunt? To teach them to work the dogs. To train leaders. All you yapping assholes are followers, and pretty piss poor at even that. Repeating long ago debunked bullshit about defensive gun uses. No one, not one single person, has even attempted to counter my cost/benefit analysis of banning assault weapons. Mostly because those pro-Gun sites don't give you a rundown of how to address such a question. So you are lost.

I mean piss on all of you idiots. My family has been fighting and defending this nation from the very beginning. It was my ancestor that shot Fergunson off his horse, and I am pretty damn sure you idiot fools don't even know who Fergunson was or where it happened. But I know Daniel did it, along with about half a dozen other patriots. And the gun he used, well it wasn't his, he borrowed it. From my great, great, oh hell I don't know how many greats, grandfather. The rifle was absolutely legendary, the Cherokee called it the great firestick, and treated the owner with the upmost respect. The same respect that I, and my children, treat a gun. In the end, that is where you FOOLS fail. You cannot treat a gun with the proper respect it deserves and therefore, you don't deserve the PRIVILEGE of owning one.

 

[Winston]

Funny how a guy calling himself Winston would mislabel guns then support government banning them ignoring our Constitutional rights for the non-problem of "assault weapons" (sic) crime.

That while you ignore the real issues. Of course you do, it's a total misdirection by totalitarian government supporters like you, Big Brother

I suspect that this Winston has never read Nineteen Eighty-Four, and is completely unaware that “Winston” is the name of the main character therein.

George Orwell was a committed Socialist.

Yes, he was. And why did he write 1984? So seriously you think it is supporting totalitarian government? Maybe Bob's right, you didn't read it

Why did he write 1984? I am so glad that you asked. First, why Winston, as I have explained to you before but understanding that your lack of intelligence, like Orwell's sheep in Animal Farm, makes you understanding difficult to attain. Winston worked for the Ministry of Information. It was his job to change history, and it bothered him that he was, in a very real sense, a historical revisionist. I have been "Winston" on discussion boards for more than twenty years. I post "truth", have always argued against revisionist, and believe facts matter.

1984 examined the role of truth and facts, and how they are manipulated, within politics. Like in this very thread. I have posted a link to a academic white paper, conducted by professors at, arguably, one of the most conservative universities in the country. The statistical methodology used is there for anyone to examine. The conclusions of the study include the reality, that assault weapons are the weapon of choice among hardcore criminals, especially those willing to attack law enforcement officers. That assault weapons, while involved in only a fraction of all crimes, are disproportionately involved in mass shootings and attacks against law enforcement.

I have also disputed the "untruth" that law enforcement opposes a ban on assault weapons, by posting the official statement of the International Association of Police Chiefs. Sticking to the facts, pointing out the truth, is what I do, and Winston is a quite appropriate moniker.

But like I said, Animal Farm is more applicable here. Napoleon believed in arming the animals. Snowball believed in building alliances with the animals on neighboring farms and improving education. Napoleon presented no real new ideas, he only attacked those of Snowball, and arguments were shut down when the sheep yelled, "Four legs good, two legs bad" and drowned out any opposition. Trump is Napoleon, you are your cohorts are the sheep, truth does not matter, and all you do is yell the equivalent of "Four legs good, two legs bad". Winston will stand with truth, present facts, and hope there are some on this messageboard that can siphon through your horseshit and see that TRUTH.

My God you can't stop blustering. None of that explains how you are Winston when you are a huge Big Brother supporter.

Here's the funny thing that you don't realize. Winston was NOT a Big Brother supporter. Sorry, should have given you a spoiler alert ...

You are the Big Brother supporter.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Banning assault weapons so that criminals don't use them to commit mass murder or attack police officers is a legitimate function of the government created by our founders. Telling people who they can marry, what bathroom they are supposed to use, or even who can come in to this country, IS NOT.

that might be true if the 2nd A didnt say otherwise,,,

The second amendment said "arms", not "any arms", not "all arms", just "arms". Hell, even Scalia, in Heller, admitted that the government did have the "right" to regulate firearms as long as it was not a significant "infringement" on the possession of "arms". Until you make an effective argument, that the previous assault weapon ban significantly affected the ability of citizens to own "arms", it is completely constitutional to restore that ban.

it didnt say "some arms"
and if you understood what regulate meant in this context you would know it means good working condition and well supplied,, and as we know a militia is just a civilian military so that means it was for military grade weapons,,,


anything else you would like to know??

I am sorry, but Miller is dead. Heller now rules. The second amendment is based on the individual right to self-defense. Besides, the whole militia to take over the government is total horseshit.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The militia was for protection against invaders, and rounding up escaped slaves. There is no "constitutional right to insurrection". If there was, why even have a section on Treason within the Constitution.

you sound scared,,,

Oh yeah, I am so scared. You yahoos are all mouth. I bet not a single one of you even knows what the Appleseed project is.

So you have a problem with people teaching proper gun safety and basic marksmanship? I think it should be taught in every school.

.

You mean it is not taught in every school, cause it sure was taught in mine, and still is. See, all you gun nuts like to believe that anyone that supports gun control is afraid of guns, does not know how to use them, and doesn't understand basic gun safety. You are sadly mistaken. Hell, right here in this thread we have a MORON that broadcasts he has all kinds of guns in his house and KEEPS THEM ALL LOADED. He sure as hell never had a gun safety class.

Guns are a tool, and they can be very targeted. I have many guns, each has a specific purpose, most of them for specific game. And yes, some of them are for self-defense. I mentioned the Appleseed project and I am quite sure no one in this thread, other than me, the gun control advocate, even knows what it is. Let alone having qualified, as have all six of my children.

What's wrong with keeping loaded guns in your house, I keep several loaded all the time. There's nothing unsafe about that. As for the rest of your disingenuous crap, shove it. Just saying the word "gun" can get you suspended from a lot of schools, but you already knew that.

.

At my school many students had guns in the trunk of their car so that they could go hunting when school let out. It is still that way today. In fact, the school board approved just such a scenario. In this part of the country the first thing the local boy scout troop does is take the scouts on a coon hunt and then they make coonskin caps. And if you keep loaded guns in your house you are just STUPID. And honestly, you have no business in this thread because you are doing more to support my arguments than your own.

Name the school, location and the year. And when it's just myself and my wife in the house, there's no problem having loaded guns.

.

Fred T Foard, every year.

And the location is?

.

You know how to google. Search it. There is only one.

 

[meaner gene]

This is a lie.

No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.

Restricting sales and preventing people from carrying guns is no different than confiscation. It just takes longer, racist.

This is why there is no reasoning with people who can't reason.
You equate any gun controls at all as confiscation.

 

[meaner gene]

In the gun manufacturing industry, an "assault rifle" is defined as a weapon with an intermediate-size round and select-fire.

The term comes from the German word Sturmgewehr from the Sturmgewehr-44 (see below) which literally translates as "storm rifle" but translates as "assault rifle."

The word "assault" is only relevant based on the name of the German hybrid Sturmwegehr 44.


"Assault weapon" is a bullshit term created by ignorant, chicken-shit gun grabbers to inspire fear by making a false distinction.

Is that like critical race theory?

 

[progressive hunter]

This is a lie.

No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.

Restricting sales and preventing people from carrying guns is no different than confiscation. It just takes longer, racist.

This is why there is no reasoning with people who can't reason.
You equate any gun controls at all as confiscation.

its all about baby steps with progs,,

 

[meaner gene]

And that alters the fact that the civilian AR was being sold for 5 years before the military widely adopted it, HOW? Also the specs for the military version are much different than the civilian version. So you can keep pretending there's no difference between the two and you'd still be WRONG. LMAO

OK Texas, it's time for you to get schooled.

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1958, ArmaLite submitted ten AR-15s and one hundred 25-round magazines for CONARC testing

However, General Maxwell Taylor, then Army Chief of Staff, "vetoed" the AR-15 in favor of the M14

In 1959, ArmaLite—now frustrated with the lack of results and suffering ongoing financial difficulties—sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt

Colt made its first sale of Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifles to Malaya on September 30, 1959. Colt manufactured their first batch of 300 Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifles in December 1959. Colt would go on to market the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifle to military services around the world.

In July 1960, General Curtis LeMay, then Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, was impressed by a demonstration of the AR-15 and ordered 8500 rifles

In the summer of 1961, General LeMay was promoted to Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and requested an additional 80,000 AR-15s.


Your "civilian" AR-15 was a military rifle from the start, including it's use in Vietnam starting in 1961
You confuse it with the new Colt AR-15

In March 1964, the M16 rifle went into production and the Army accepted delivery

The Colt ArmaLite AR-15 was discontinued with the adoption of the M16 rifle.


Shortly after the United States military adopted the M16 rifle, Colt introduced its line semi-automatic-only Colt AR-15 rifles, which it markets to civilians and law enforcement.

 

[OKTexas]

And that alters the fact that the civilian AR was being sold for 5 years before the military widely adopted it, HOW? Also the specs for the military version are much different than the civilian version. So you can keep pretending there's no difference between the two and you'd still be WRONG. LMAO

OK Texas, it's time for you to get schooled.

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1958, ArmaLite submitted ten AR-15s and one hundred 25-round magazines for CONARC testing

However, General Maxwell Taylor, then Army Chief of Staff, "vetoed" the AR-15 in favor of the M14

In 1959, ArmaLite—now frustrated with the lack of results and suffering ongoing financial difficulties—sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt

Colt made its first sale of Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifles to Malaya on September 30, 1959. Colt manufactured their first batch of 300 Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifles in December 1959. Colt would go on to market the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 rifle to military services around the world.

In July 1960, General Curtis LeMay, then Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, was impressed by a demonstration of the AR-15 and ordered 8500 rifles

In the summer of 1961, General LeMay was promoted to Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force, and requested an additional 80,000 AR-15s.


Your "civilian" AR-15 was a military rifle from the start, including it's use in Vietnam starting in 1961
You confuse it with the new Colt AR-15

In March 1964, the M16 rifle went into production and the Army accepted delivery

The Colt ArmaLite AR-15 was discontinued with the adoption of the M16 rifle.


Shortly after the United States military adopted the M16 rifle, Colt introduced its line semi-automatic-only Colt AR-15 rifles, which it markets to civilians and law enforcement.

See post 342,

.

 

[meaner gene]

Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

Readers respond to James Fallows

www.theatlantic.com

The M16 was adopted in March 1964.

So while those production/sales numbers may be accurate, what they conflated is the M16 and the adoption of the M16A1 five years later.

In 1969, the M16A1 replaced the M14 rifle to become the US military's standard service rifle. The M16A1's improvements include a bolt-assist, chrome-plated bore and a 30-round magazine.

 

[Colin norris]

bear513
So YOU can name modern western society controlled by democracies that do not have freedom of speech and guns are forbidden.
There's plenty of room below here. Start now big mouth.

 

[John T. Ford]

a well regulated militia WHAT??

where does it say only militia members can have arms??

and what is a well regulated militia??

its the people well equipped with military grade weapons,,

tell me how I have that wrong??

Any questions about Leftism being a Mental Disorder?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So government takes legal guns from non-criminal gun owners.

This is a lie.

No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.

Restricting sales and preventing people from carrying guns is no different than confiscation. It just takes longer, racist.

And you evaded the question. So let's go with the lie that you're not going to "confiscate" guns, just restrict their use by legal gun owners. You still didn't explain how that allows you to go to the store without being shot.

It isn't legal gun owners who are shooting you stupid fuck and you did nothing about the illegal guns. Stop being a dumb ass

No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.

No measures have been introduced to ‘confiscate’ guns – the notion is a rightwing lie and more baseless demagoguery from conservatives.