To begin with, bullets, I have owned a few firearms over the years and have never found one that had a place where bullets could be inserted. If she cannot get the simple stuff correct right off the bat she had no credibility left to go forward.
She is talking to the laymen that know nothing about assault rifles. Very few of them call them cartridges.
Matters not, if she is trying to educate someone it is imperative for her to do her homework, least she come off like a dummy.
The video was almost 9 minutes long and her saying “inserted” makes her clueless? Was the chronological history of each gun wrong? Any of the names of the weapons she mentioned incorrect? Any of the reasons for militaries going with certain guns incorrect?
I agree it's accurate, just poorly worded, it would have been top shelf if she had someone proof the copy and did a better job at the audio.
The real story is the subversion of the meaning of the terms Assault Rifle and Assault Weapon and the deliberate nd dishonest blurring of the meaning to the uneducated to justify the incremental demonization of guns and gun ownership. In recent years, the deliberate and dishonest blurring of terms and meanings continued by referring to guns that have the demonized the 'look' of targeted guns as 'weapons of war', expanding the class of demonized weapons. And, it continues, by the conflation of semi autos with the terms 'assault weapons' and 'weapons of war', in a further attempt at normalizing the terms to encompass the broadest interpretation as possible. The day will come when, because military weapons use gun powder for cartridge propellant, that any gun using such propellant becomes referred to as a military weapon, the mass kill's preferred weapon. The liberal left understands that control of language is control of the narrative among those that lack critical thinking. It's not just the gun control issue this is happening, but exhibited by such terms lexicons as 'common sense', 'undocumented ailiens', and many more, to support the propaganda agenda of the Left.
There is no federal definition of 'assault weapon' at this time. That was retired with the last AW ban which was basically a few cosmetic parts.
Assault Weapon = Any gun gun banners might wish to ban, or expressly dislike or looks similar to other guns they wish to ban. This is philosophically and politically motivated dogma, not logical or objective rational in any substantive manner, hence why there exists no definitive explanation as to what actually constitutes a so called "Assault Weapon." There is a direct correlation between the term "Assault Weapon" and emotionally charged rhetoric and hand wringing and gun ban mythology. Firearms do not assault anyone. Machine guns are not "Assault Weapons" and forget about faulty associations and trying to associate German transliterations as to what it might have mean in relation to the English-language.
. My assesment is that she is a very talented college student that would do well at law. It is obvious she worked off common informational sources. The use of the word "bullets" is commonly used or misused and in this context to simplify things for the layperson, not an actual error.
And what is the point of the picture you posted in a thread about the history of the assault rifle? If it was supposed to be funny there is a Humor and Satire Forum for that.
Well this is the latest and most deadly assault rifle modification. (according to the left) I think it applies in a thread about the history of the assault rifle.
But, there is a mob definition, though it morphs constantly to fit whatever GCA/liberal narrative is being touted at the moment, and, further, it is always assumed to be factual and understood to be a common sense (a lexicon of agreement with GCA/Liberal dogma). The morphing of the definition is continually expanding, now beginning to cover semiauto rifles (fully semiauto don’t you know), then coming, based on the introduction of semiauto as defining criteria, semiauto pistols, er... assault weapons’. Waiting for the term to extend to assault bullets.
Already out there, didn't you know the .223 is the preferred round of all mass murders, even if they use a semi-automatic handgun. Add to that the anti-gunner's are actually racists, black long gun bad, wood stocks brown gun ok, multi-colored guns like the recent Taurus pretty guns, well they are sort of gay, so maybe they are ok for a while, but they will ban them eventually as well. https://www.taurususa.com/firearms/pistols/taurus-spectrum/
She is pretty much got it right. Some things were left out, before the M-16 that is full auto capable you had the M-14 that also had a selector switch that allowed full automatic fire. Most M-14's issued in the U.S. Army had the selector switch making them full auto capable where as only 20 % of the Marine Corps M-14 were full auto capable.
Given the description of cosmetics comprising the definition of assault weapons, this image must certainly be representative of a really scary example.... Ah, however, it is missing a devilish flash hider and bayonet lug.
Hey! That's not funny! I was stabbed with one of those when I was in junior high school. They need to be outlawed. No more pencils in schools.
Stabbed, with one with an attached bayonet? You’d probably allow fully semi auto assault pens with indelible ink, eh? There are probably a lot of ‘liberal students that would prefer banning all writing instruments. Probably a lot of liberals that wish the Constitution was written with pencil...who needs Amendments when you have erasures?
