No such thing as an "assault" rifle

SJJRSJJS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know about George Soros, but it's a proven fact that Marxist Socialists want to disarm the populace, because they have done so in the past. Once they take your guns, they can implement whatever policies they please, and you are powerless to do anything about it. They can take your home, your car, seize your bank accounts and assets.... you can't do anything about it without guns. And if they can't outright take your guns, they will incrementally pass laws on the back of tragedies like this, to make it exceedingly more difficult to own or obtain a gun.

Now, idiots like Howey can run around posting dictionary definitions of "assault rifle" and pretending to not comprehend my point, but the fact remains "assault" is a noun or modifier that means a specific thing, and that thing is something guns are incapable of. So this become an issue of basic common sense, and nothing more. Riffles can't "assault" anything, it's not possible.
 
Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Nobody's anti-guns anymore than they are pro-abortion. There just is no need to have semi-automatic nor automatic weapons in the hands of citizens.

If you can't defend your home with a gun that has 6 bullets in it, or kill a deer with two bullets in the chamber, then maybe you need to find someway else to defend your family and kill a deer. Knife? Sling shot?

BTW, weapons of mass destruction, like semi-automatic and automatic guns were created to be used in war. We on the left are NOT anti-gun, WE are the ones who are PRO-LIFE
 
Southern Tea said:
Nobody's anti-guns anymore than they are pro-abortion. There just is no need to have semi-automatic nor automatic weapons in the hands of citizens.

If you can't defend your home with a gun that has 6 bullets in it, or kill a deer with two bullets in the chamber, then maybe you need to find someway else to defend your family and kill a deer. Knife? Sling shot?

BTW, weapons of mass destruction, like semi-automatic and automatic guns were created to be used in war. We on the left are NOT anti-gun, WE are the ones who are PRO-LIFE
Click to expand...

I have already given my reasoning and rationale for why I need semi-automatic (and even automatic weapons if I can find them.) These are far more efficient at shooting crazed anti-gun liberals in the head when they come onto my property with the intention of taking my guns. I can defend my home, my property, and my constitutional rights better, with a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, preferably, with a high-capacity clip and armor piercing shells.

And I am pro-CHOICE... you have the choice to stay off my property and leave my guns alone, or the choice of getting a bullet through the head. It's entirely YOUR choice!
 
Southern Tea said:
Nobody's anti-guns anymore than they are pro-abortion.
Click to expand...
Your own argument begs to differ.
There just is no need to have semi-automatic nor automatic weapons in the hands of citizens.
Click to expand...
There is no 'need' for all sorts of things if you are going by a narrowly tailored standard. The only need to be discussed is the NEED to remember the USSC is not on your side in the matter.

If you can't defend your home with a gun that has 6 bullets in it, or kill a deer with two bullets in the chamber, then maybe you need to find someway else to defend your family and kill a deer. Knife? Sling shot?
Click to expand...
It's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

BTW, weapons of mass destruction, like semi-automatic and automatic guns were created to be used in war.
Click to expand...
As above, you REALLY don't know what you're talking about. Firstly, Both lever action and bolt action rifles, the things you apparently think are A-OK, were designed for MILITARY USE. Semi-automatic (A term it seems you have no understanding of) firearms however, were not. They were designed for the CIVILIAN MARKETS. Second, you are making a massive fallacy (appeal to emotion, and non-sequitar) when you use WMDs in the same context and sentence as civilian owned firearms.
We on the left are NOT anti-gun, WE are the ones who are PRO-LIFE
Click to expand...
I'd agree that leftys aren't anti gun. They're anti-freedom.
 
I was just explaining to my wife that there is no such thing as a winter coat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top