Why are assault weapons so deadly? What a joke. Yes, 49 (more) people were killed by an Islamic terrorist who identified himself with ISIS, publicly. According to the Center for Disease Control, 16,121 Americans were murdered in 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm That's 44 murders a day. every day. Pistols are the most favored murder weapon, far and away, followed by knives and then baseball bats and clubs. So what do Left-wing extremists focus on? Why *assault rifles* of course. Murders by knives and baseball bats far exceed those by *assault rifles*. You really want to save lives, restrict abortions to the first 60 days. That's where the greatest number of tragic homicides take place, every day.
Leftists who dearly love to kiss Islamic terrorist butts try to excuse the slaughter with the absurd claim that terrorists kill more Muslims than they kill infidels like us. So it's supposed to be okay then? How insane these Leftists are.
You have posted a very silly position and a most false one at that, because I do not have any DIVINE KNOWEDGE, otherwise I could magically avoid all dangerous situations simply by staying home, or going out of my home if I could avoid a home invasion, being armed has saved my life many times, thus proving Gun Control advocates to be full of hot air.
There is a book by a psychiatrist with that title. What else would you call someone who so eagerly defends the destruction of over 1,000,000 growing human beings every year, just in America? What else would you call someone who promotes race-baiting and black dependence and crime? What else would you call someone who despises the most successful financial system ever devised, viz. capitalism? What else would you call someone who delights in the destruction of this once great and shining nation? They vote for the likes of Obama and Clinton, and proudly at that.
I don't need a psychiatrist to know that liberalism is a mental disorder (Just writing this statement would be construed as a violation of the "rules by many") Delusion is part and parcel to mental illness and an often key aspect of schizophrenia. All we have to do is look at the nitwittery of transgenderism. If a man or woman believes he's Jesus, he's put on meds and or hospitalized. If a man or woman believes he's a member of the opposite sex, they're now a protected, special political class. You can't pick and choose your delusion, except in liberalism.
Instead of restricting Muslim immigration from war zones into our country, the leftists would rather restrict law abiding American constitutional rights. It is absurd.
Well sure, why not import foreign people that will later object to Americans wearing a Crucifix or Star of David, or X-Mass celebrations or a Manger display or Christmas trees or Chanukah displays because they find those objectionable ?
Listen, *Einstein*, our Second Amendment was NOT written with hunting in mind. It was written so that citizens would have the means to take up arms against an oppressive government, should the need arise. Please read some early American history. *Feminists* (sic)( a one-word oxymoron, because *feminists* are not remotely feminine) are always lecturing men that we men have absolutely NOTHING to say about abortion because we men can't have babies. By such *feminist* (sic) logic, you should have nothing to say about weapons because you can't shoot, and know nothing about them, clearly. Terrorists kill and maim large numbers of people effectively with.... wait for it... box openers. Yes, they used box cutters to highjack passenger jets and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and missed their final target when some men (assuredly not liberals) fought back and forced them to crash into a field instead of the White House or Congress, either of which was almost certainly the jackals' intended target. You do want to bring some more of them into America from Syria, and other third world crapholes, don't you? Bombs and explosives are the weapons of choice for mass casualties. Didn't you even know that? Words of microagression scare liberals, so this "scary" business has an extremely low threshold for liberals. I mean, ants can step over it.
The Gun Ban clack wants an ideal catch 22 for gun ownership, they claim you must be of the Militia in order to have the RTKBA under the Second Amendment, however, AFASIK, the Militia is currently non existent, the gun banners further argue, only the Police & Military should have firearms, and that civilians should not have access to Military weapons, So by the time the gun ban crowd is done, only a privileged few are allowed Arms, and is is only a matter of time before the U.S. becomes another Mexico, with a corrupt to the core Democrat Liberal Government.
You need to read the dictionary. You can use a brick as a weapon, but until used, it is not defined as a weapon because of the intent of the brick. A gun is different. It is intended to be used to be used a particular way. "weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems."
Then, why don't you support having ONLY those with CCW permits or the like, be allowed to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise. Because only CCW owners need BC, why don't you insist that only BC be required to possess a gun. By your own admission, the CCW is a restriction and a REGULARTION that matches few instances of gun violence, so why don't you support your own occupation as a means to reduce gun violence . I do. I promote CCW permits to every gun owner I know. I promote only those who are qualified, as CCW owners are, from posessing a gun. You just said REGULATION WORKS by claiming CCW owners are seldom involved in criminal activities. Why not PROMOTE THE IDEA . The constitutional rulings have all backed the idea.
I'm passionate about my life. Back in 1981 in the court case of Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) the court ruled: "[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." My defense of my life is my responsibility. So sayeth the courts. That being the case, you do not get to choose what is the best tool(s) for me to employ. We aren't going to turn back the clock on technology so you may as well get used to the idea. Semi automatic weapons are here and they are here to stay. And if a tyrannical government decides that they want to take them away, I'm hoping that enough of the blood that coursed through the veins of the founding fathers of this country is still present in modern day gun owners.
In other words, the police have NO DUTY to protect the public from crimes. That's the meaning of the confusing legalese. Some police botched their job after a woman called 911, and nobody came until after there was a murder. There was ample time, but police screwed up, big time. The court said, "Oh well, too bad. Next case."
Your source is a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing moron. No that is not what they are designed for. They are designed to allow a soldier to fight longer without the need resupply. Thru actually sacrifice both stopping power and accuracy to accomplish this.
they also were designed to fulfill the duties of three different weapons that the USA and other nations had fielded 1) a submachine gun (STEN, MP-44, "grease gun") 2) a Main battle rifle (GARAND, FN-FAL, 98K) 3) a carbine (MI Carbine)
Not really The Sturmgewehr literally storm gun bettter translation assult rifle was developed under the idea that the vast majority of military combat occurs under 200 yards because of this fact the developers of the Sturmgewehr concluded the the 7.92X57mm mauserwas overkill and that a soldier could be more effective in the course of a battle using lighter ammo. So they devolved a weapon that used the 7.29X33mm Kurtz(short) as opposed to the 57mm mauser which was the standard German rifle cartridge. Using lighter ammo allows the soldier to carry more ammo and stay on the battlefield longer without the need for resupply. This serves as a force multiplier. Fundamentally the assult rifle has from the beginning been based on sacrificing stopping power, range and accuracy in favor of the ability to carry as much ammo as possible. That is the fundamental premise to the design.
we are both right. the main reason for the German development was in the street fighting of Stalingrad, German soldiers often encountered fixed positions and their machine gun teams couldn't keep up with them. The idea of "assault rifles" was to allow several soldiers to spray automatic fire on the fixed position so other soldiers using flamethrowers or satchel charges or bazookas could get close enough to destroy the fixed position and its defenders. BTW 57MM mauser would have been a huge weapon given a 10 MM is .40 in diameter and a 8MM was the standard German round
DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE how large an 57mm round would be -the correct term was 7.92x57 you always note the diameter FIRST. you apparently don't know that its like saying the AK 47 fires a 39mm round when its 7.62X39
No, the 8mm Mauser 98 rifle and K = carbine, I had quite a few.... I remember the M-16A1 / M203, 40 MM Grenade laucher, it fired lots of other stuff too. The Germans had some nice Sub Machine Guns too.
he didn't understand that 7.92x57mm is the correct term as is 8mm. No one says that a rifle's caliber is the LENGTH of the cartridge no one claims the AK 74 is a 39mm rifle or that the M16 is a 45mm caliber when its a 5.56
