No such thing as an "assault" rifle

Just a minor point of clarification here for the deranged liberal anti-gun nutters...

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. The word "assault" is a noun or modifier meaning "to violently attack." No rifle can do this, they are inanimate objects. This is why a lot of you are inclined to say "assault-type" weapons, because your brain and intelligence tells you the modifier is inaccurate and incorrect.

Also, the well-used term "military-style" has the same qualifier. It's not a "military weapon" but a "military-style" weapon. The "style" of the weapon has nothing to do with function or use. I can wear a "military-style" hat, it doesn't mean I am in the military, or the hat belongs to the military, or even that it is my intention to indicate such a thing.

Military units are generally equipped with the most efficiently operating tools, as a general principle, this is what makes one military better than another. To say that a particular weapon is "military-style" simply means the design is most efficient. It may be lighter, easier to carry, easier to load, or more durable than a style that is "non-military." Again, this has nothing to do with functionality other than to indicate it may be more efficient. It might also mean the weapon simply has the "look" of a military weapon, yet has no characteristics otherwise in common. In other words, it is a meaningless modifier in terms of the functionality of the weapon.

It's important that we note, liberal anti-gun nutters are using the terminology in order to evoke fear and intimidation on something they wish to attack and defeat. This is why the calls for gun bans and restrictions are for "military-style assault-type" weapons, and not merely guns in general. Certainly, there are guns which are not military issue or style, and not generally described as "assault-type" but are just as capable of killing another human being in the hands of someone with that intent. Indeed, there are weapons which can accomplish this that aren't even guns. A baseball bat can kill another person just as well as a gun. However, we don't hear about "military-style assault-type" baseball bats, do we?
 
Just a minor point of clarification here for the deranged liberal anti-gun nutters...

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. The word "assault" is a noun or modifier meaning "to violently attack." No rifle can do this, they are inanimate objects. This is why a lot of you are inclined to say "assault-type" weapons, because your brain and intelligence tells you the modifier is inaccurate and incorrect.

Also, the well-used term "military-style" has the same qualifier. It's not a "military weapon" but a "military-style" weapon. The "style" of the weapon has nothing to do with function or use. I can wear a "military-style" hat, it doesn't mean I am in the military, or the hat belongs to the military, or even that it is my intention to indicate such a thing.

Military units are generally equipped with the most efficiently operating tools, as a general principle, this is what makes one military better than another. To say that a particular weapon is "military-style" simply means the design is most efficient. It may be lighter, easier to carry, easier to load, or more durable than a style that is "non-military." Again, this has nothing to do with functionality other than to indicate it may be more efficient. It might also mean the weapon simply has the "look" of a military weapon, yet has no characteristics otherwise in common. In other words, it is a meaningless modifier in terms of the functionality of the weapon.

It's important that we note, liberal anti-gun nutters are using the terminology in order to evoke fear and intimidation on something they wish to attack and defeat. This is why the calls for gun bans and restrictions are for "military-style assault-type" weapons, and not merely guns in general. Certainly, there are guns which are not military issue or style, and not generally described as "assault-type" but are just as capable of killing another human being in the hands of someone with that intent. Indeed, there are weapons which can accomplish this that aren't even guns. A baseball bat can kill another person just as well as a gun. However, we don't hear about "military-style assault-type" baseball bats, do we?

I think there should be an tax on ammunition and guns, psychometric tests, a limit on bullet calibre, no more than .223, and a minimum age of twenty one for gun ownership. Oh and a total ban on southern rednecks!!
 
I think there should be an tax on ammunition and guns
Already is.
psychometric tests
Cannot test to exercise a right, same with literacy tests for voting.
a limit on bullet calibre, no more than .223
22-Eargesplitten-Loudenboomer-Comparison.jpg

Like that kind of .223?
and a minimum age of twenty one for gun ownership.
Make it that for all rights and military enlistment and you might go somewhere.

Tom, the argument your trying to go with would be like us going to England and saying you need to get rid of the monarchy and House of Lords.
 
Already is.
Cannot test to exercise a right, same with literacy tests for voting.

22-Eargesplitten-Loudenboomer-Comparison.jpg

Like that kind of .223?
Make it that for all rights and military enlistment and you might go somewhere.

Tom, the argument your trying to go with would be like us going to England and saying you need to get rid of the monarchy and House of Lords.

1) The tax should be sufficient to pay for armed police in schools and mental health provision

2) That must be wrong, if that is true then how can you stop the mentally ill and criminals?

3) Surely the difference between military and "civilian" versions primarily is chamber pressure, so that would be regulated as well.

4) I assume that you agree that southern rednecks like Dixie should be banned.
 
I think there should be an tax on ammunition and guns, psychometric tests, a limit on bullet calibre, no more than .223, and a minimum age of twenty one for gun ownership. Oh and a total ban on southern rednecks!!

Absolutely! Great idea! :)
 
1) The tax should be sufficient to pay for armed police in schools and mental health provision
Uhhh that's not the burden of gun owners.

2) That must be wrong, if that is true then how can you stop the mentally ill and criminals?
No, it's not. Criminals forfeit their rights per the 5A, and mentally ill must be determined by the court (similar to criminals).

3) Surely the difference between military and "civilian" versions primarily is chamber pressure, so that would be regulated as well.
.....Tom....No. No on so many levels.

4) I assume that agree that southern rednceks should be banned.

No Tom. People who have different positions than me are different, not bad.
 
Just a minor point of clarification here for the deranged liberal anti-gun nutters...

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. The word "assault" is a noun or modifier meaning "to violently attack." No rifle can do this, they are inanimate objects. This is why a lot of you are inclined to say "assault-type" weapons, because your brain and intelligence tells you the modifier is inaccurate and incorrect.

Also, the well-used term "military-style" has the same qualifier. It's not a "military weapon" but a "military-style" weapon. The "style" of the weapon has nothing to do with function or use. I can wear a "military-style" hat, it doesn't mean I am in the military, or the hat belongs to the military, or even that it is my intention to indicate such a thing.

Military units are generally equipped with the most efficiently operating tools, as a general principle, this is what makes one military better than another. To say that a particular weapon is "military-style" simply means the design is most efficient. It may be lighter, easier to carry, easier to load, or more durable than a style that is "non-military." Again, this has nothing to do with functionality other than to indicate it may be more efficient. It might also mean the weapon simply has the "look" of a military weapon, yet has no characteristics otherwise in common. In other words, it is a meaningless modifier in terms of the functionality of the weapon.

It's important that we note, liberal anti-gun nutters are using the terminology in order to evoke fear and intimidation on something they wish to attack and defeat. This is why the calls for gun bans and restrictions are for "military-style assault-type" weapons, and not merely guns in general. Certainly, there are guns which are not military issue or style, and not generally described as "assault-type" but are just as capable of killing another human being in the hands of someone with that intent. Indeed, there are weapons which can accomplish this that aren't even guns. A baseball bat can kill another person just as well as a gun. However, we don't hear about "military-style assault-type" baseball bats, do we?
That is correct, with the scare terminology, they are trying to influence the soccer Moms who do not want their kids harmed by the big bad "Assault" weapons. I bet that George Soros has an entire commie crew working on clever anti-gun slogans and phrases. Once they disarm US, then they can start taking US over, by hook and crook, like they did with this last one. The mainstream media are all Leftists from what I have been seeing, so they tell US what George Soros tells them to tell US, just like with Benghazigate.
 
That is correct, with the scare terminology, they are trying to influence the soccer Moms who do not want their kids harmed by the big bad "Assault" weapons. I bet that George Soros has an entire commie crew working on clever anti-gun slogans and phrases. Once they disarm US, then they can start taking US over, by hook and crook, like they did with this last one. The mainstream media are all Leftists from what I have been seeing, so they tell US what George Soros tells them to tell US, just like with Benghazigate.

Just a minor point of clarification here for the deranged liberal anti-gun nutters...

There is no such thing as an "assault" rifle. The word "assault" is a noun or modifier meaning "to violently attack." No rifle can do this, they are inanimate objects. This is why a lot of you are inclined to say "assault-type" weapons, because your brain and intelligence tells you the modifier is inaccurate and incorrect.

Also, the well-used term "military-style" has the same qualifier. It's not a "military weapon" but a "military-style" weapon. The "style" of the weapon has nothing to do with function or use. I can wear a "military-style" hat, it doesn't mean I am in the military, or the hat belongs to the military, or even that it is my intention to indicate such a thing.

Military units are generally equipped with the most efficiently operating tools, as a general principle, this is what makes one military better than another. To say that a particular weapon is "military-style" simply means the design is most efficient. It may be lighter, easier to carry, easier to load, or more durable than a style that is "non-military." Again, this has nothing to do with functionality other than to indicate it may be more efficient. It might also mean the weapon simply has the "look" of a military weapon, yet has no characteristics otherwise in common. In other words, it is a meaningless modifier in terms of the functionality of the weapon.

It's important that we note, liberal anti-gun nutters are using the terminology in order to evoke fear and intimidation on something they wish to attack and defeat. This is why the calls for gun bans and restrictions are for "military-style assault-type" weapons, and not merely guns in general. Certainly, there are guns which are not military issue or style, and not generally described as "assault-type" but are just as capable of killing another human being in the hands of someone with that intent. Indeed, there are weapons which can accomplish this that aren't even guns. A baseball bat can kill another person just as well as a gun. However, we don't hear about "military-style assault-type" baseball bats, do we?

as·sault ri·fle
Noun
A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use
.


Well, Dixie?
 
I think there should be an tax on ammunition and guns, psychometric tests, a limit on bullet calibre, no more than .223, and a minimum age of twenty one for gun ownership. Oh and a total ban on southern rednecks!!

What if you were hunting moose or bear? You need some knockdown power for an 1800 pound animal.
 
Last edited:
That is correct, with the scare terminology, they are trying to influence the soccer Moms who do not want their kids harmed by the big bad "Assault" weapons. I bet that George Soros has an entire commie crew working on clever anti-gun slogans and phrases. Once they disarm US, then they can start taking US over, by hook and crook, like they did with this last one. The mainstream media are all Leftists from what I have been seeing, so they tell US what George Soros tells them to tell US, just like with Benghazigate.

You are an idiot. The right as well as left both want total gun controll. The right just treats it as a single issue voter situation as a way to garner votes. Still a boiling a live form deal. The righties who tell you any different are just drinking kool aid.
 
No, they just closed the registry to anyone but the government. It'd be like limiting your computer to a 56k modem. FOREVER.

To be clear for Howey, they can no longer be purchased new by junior for his next killing spree, correct?
 
To be clear for Howey, they can no longer be purchased new by junior for his next killing spree, correct?

Not if it wasn't registered before May 1st 1986. There are what's called 'dealers samples' but those are for people who have a license and only for the duration that they maintain a license.
 
Back
Top