JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,798
- 2,220
It is a mind cringing fact to realize that our Republics loudest voices on the gun issue are such idiotic ignoramuses that they dont know what the hell an assault rifle is.
It is even worse when their supposed opposition party gives in and uses the same erroneous bullshit terms inaccurately as the Gun Grabbing Nazis do.
So here is a little article to help the goose stepping leftwing idiots to get their shit straight.
Not that facts have ever slowed them down at all.
What Is an 'Assault Weapon?' - Breitbart
What is an “assault weapon?”
Is it a gun that shoots a certain round? Say a .223 or a 5.56? Or is a gun that has a flashlight on it? What about a laser or an aftermarket grip, or a heat shield, or flash hider?
Does the term “assault weapon” only apply to black guns? Or can an “assault weapon” be white or green or red or brown or camouflage? Can it be pink?
Does an “assault weapon” use magazines or does it use what Sen. Tim Kaine called “ammunition clips?” After all, President Obama recently described the Glock handgun Omar Mateen carried in Pulse Orlando as a gun that “had a lot of clips in it.”
Is a clip like a bullet or do Kaine and Obama simply not understand firearm basics?
Here’s the point: “assault weapons” is a made up term that applies to whatever best serves Democrats who are pushing gun control at any given time. After all, the New York Times reports that the term “assault weapons” is a “myth” Democrats created in the 1990s.
And according to the NYT, the “myth” came into play when the Democrats — who were eager to find a scapegoat for escalating crime in the early 1990s — created a “politically defined category of guns” they could then demonize and ban. They subsequently achieved an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and it lasted until 2004. And when today’s Democrats appeal to that ban as one that should be re-instituted, they prove they understand little about it.
For starters, the 1994 did not ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned cosmetic features that Democrats consider part and parcel to “assault weapons.”
To put it another way, the 1994 ban did not ban AR-15s in general. Rather, it banned flash hiders, certain fore stocks and grips, collapsible and folding rear stocks, “high capacity” magazines, etc. It banned things that made the gun look like the scary guns Democrats think about when they think about an “assault weapon.” But it did nothing to change or ban the actual gun.
The author of the above article is correct that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term, but "assault rifle" has been around since WW2 and was used exclusively for rifles capable of firing small arms ammo in full auto mode, i.e. what most libtards would call a "machine gun".
That was an assault rifle, but todays AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but merely a lower cost rifle that uses cheap and easily available military components.
If you have ever priced Walnut wood stocks and compared them to the cost of plastic stocks you would understand why the military wanted the cheaper plastic, and the color was black to suppress light reflection, a bad thing on the battlefield.
So I hope this helps you libtards out there to understand that not every rifle that has those mean ole military kind of looking components makes them an "assault weapon". Calling them such only makes you look stupid, as if that were even needed.
It is even worse when their supposed opposition party gives in and uses the same erroneous bullshit terms inaccurately as the Gun Grabbing Nazis do.
So here is a little article to help the goose stepping leftwing idiots to get their shit straight.
Not that facts have ever slowed them down at all.
What Is an 'Assault Weapon?' - Breitbart
What is an “assault weapon?”
Is it a gun that shoots a certain round? Say a .223 or a 5.56? Or is a gun that has a flashlight on it? What about a laser or an aftermarket grip, or a heat shield, or flash hider?
Does the term “assault weapon” only apply to black guns? Or can an “assault weapon” be white or green or red or brown or camouflage? Can it be pink?
Does an “assault weapon” use magazines or does it use what Sen. Tim Kaine called “ammunition clips?” After all, President Obama recently described the Glock handgun Omar Mateen carried in Pulse Orlando as a gun that “had a lot of clips in it.”
Is a clip like a bullet or do Kaine and Obama simply not understand firearm basics?
Here’s the point: “assault weapons” is a made up term that applies to whatever best serves Democrats who are pushing gun control at any given time. After all, the New York Times reports that the term “assault weapons” is a “myth” Democrats created in the 1990s.
And according to the NYT, the “myth” came into play when the Democrats — who were eager to find a scapegoat for escalating crime in the early 1990s — created a “politically defined category of guns” they could then demonize and ban. They subsequently achieved an “assault weapons” ban in 1994, and it lasted until 2004. And when today’s Democrats appeal to that ban as one that should be re-instituted, they prove they understand little about it.
For starters, the 1994 did not ban “assault weapons.” Rather, it banned cosmetic features that Democrats consider part and parcel to “assault weapons.”
To put it another way, the 1994 ban did not ban AR-15s in general. Rather, it banned flash hiders, certain fore stocks and grips, collapsible and folding rear stocks, “high capacity” magazines, etc. It banned things that made the gun look like the scary guns Democrats think about when they think about an “assault weapon.” But it did nothing to change or ban the actual gun.
The author of the above article is correct that the term "Assault weapon" is a made up term, but "assault rifle" has been around since WW2 and was used exclusively for rifles capable of firing small arms ammo in full auto mode, i.e. what most libtards would call a "machine gun".
That was an assault rifle, but todays AR-15 is not an assault rifle, but merely a lower cost rifle that uses cheap and easily available military components.
If you have ever priced Walnut wood stocks and compared them to the cost of plastic stocks you would understand why the military wanted the cheaper plastic, and the color was black to suppress light reflection, a bad thing on the battlefield.
So I hope this helps you libtards out there to understand that not every rifle that has those mean ole military kind of looking components makes them an "assault weapon". Calling them such only makes you look stupid, as if that were even needed.
