As I said in the previous posting, a majority of Americans now oppose an assault weapon ban. So it hopefully wont come to that. At least this time you didn't throw in the videos of the Apaches and MLRS.
Forgetting the fact that these are two separate rifles; the one on the right being an actual "assault rifle", or service rifle to the rest of us. And the one on the left being functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Thus continues the aforementioned industry built on obfuscation and intellectual perfidy.
Given the US Constitution makes it clear that waging war against the US is treason (Article III, Section iii), you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about, "Constitutional Insurgent": putting new meaning to the word "oxymoron".
You can use all the five dollar words you want, but you are still ignorant.
I should also add that the issue is not the difference between the two weapons, but upon the training and force of both people pictured. If anything, the person carrying the service rifle is backed by a well-equiped military.
You missed that rather important point, but you appear to have missed quite a few rather significant issues, "Constitutional Insurgent."
"I should also add that the issue is not the difference between the two weapons, but upon the training and force of both people pictured."
Training is certainly very important. Did you know there are about 5.5 million gulf war veterans? They've all had the training you speak of. Wonder how many have bought one of those rifles pictured above, or a version of the one the other side used.
You seem confused. Aside from being oddly preoccupied with my screen name [also odd given yours]....if the difference between the rifles is not the issue...then why the gun control industry's goal of banning them? If pejoratives are your only argument.....you don't really have an argument, you have a tantrum.
I didn't think the post was about the AWB as much as the bizarre gun nut thinking that they'd be able to protect themselves in a gun fight with a real opponent. Of course, for almost all of them the only gun fight they'll ever witness is on their flatscreen.
"I didn't think the post was about the AWB as much as the bizarre gun nut thinking that they'd be able to protect themselves in a gun fight with a real opponent."
Yes, it's worked out pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. What's your definition of a "real" opponent?
I am familiar with what happened in Paris. Maybe we should ban them like they did, huh?
Though Obama isn't familiar with what happened. He still says this doesn't happen in other counties with strict gun control... just a month after it happened... while in Paris.
"Don't forget the ironic silence when we ask why civilian law enforcement agencies would then need these "weapons of war"."
That would be interesting, law enforcement required to carry revolvers and pump shotguns again. It would likely reduce the number of rounds fired though.
"He still says this doesn't happen in other counties with strict gun control.."
I believe what he says is it doesn't happen in other countries with strict gun control WITH THE FREQUENCY that it happens here. But, don't hesitate to misrepresent what your opponent says.
Besides, even if he did, France has had the frequency of mass shootings that the US had this past year. And if we considered body count, France had way more dead- before even accounting for population. How can he stand up in Paris and say something like that so soon after the tragedy?
The USA had four mass shootings last year totaling 37 fatalities. France had three mass shootings totaling 145 fatalities. Why so incredulous, Mike? You don't watch the news?
Remind me again how the world's mightiest military power is doing against those herders in Afghanistan. And how did that war against rice farmers in SE Asia end up?
OK--fine. So the militiaman on the left has nearly 2/3rds the body fat percentage of typical "gun control" hero Michael Moore--does that mean that any rounds he fires will bounce harmlessly off the lean, mean fighting machine on the right when he walks into his ambush?
As I said in the previous posting, a majority of Americans now oppose an assault weapon ban. So it hopefully wont come to that.
ReplyDeleteAt least this time you didn't throw in the videos of the Apaches and MLRS.
Forgetting the fact that these are two separate rifles; the one on the right being an actual "assault rifle", or service rifle to the rest of us. And the one on the left being functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. Thus continues the aforementioned industry built on obfuscation and intellectual perfidy.
ReplyDeleteGiven the US Constitution makes it clear that waging war against the US is treason (Article III, Section iii), you have demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about, "Constitutional Insurgent": putting new meaning to the word "oxymoron".
DeleteYou can use all the five dollar words you want, but you are still ignorant.
I should also add that the issue is not the difference between the two weapons, but upon the training and force of both people pictured. If anything, the person carrying the service rifle is backed by a well-equiped military.
DeleteYou missed that rather important point, but you appear to have missed quite a few rather significant issues, "Constitutional Insurgent."
"I should also add that the issue is not the difference between the two weapons, but upon the training and force of both people pictured."
DeleteTraining is certainly very important. Did you know there are about 5.5 million gulf war veterans? They've all had the training you speak of. Wonder how many have bought one of those rifles pictured above, or a version of the one the other side used.
You seem confused. Aside from being oddly preoccupied with my screen name [also odd given yours]....if the difference between the rifles is not the issue...then why the gun control industry's goal of banning them? If pejoratives are your only argument.....you don't really have an argument, you have a tantrum.
DeleteI didn't think the post was about the AWB as much as the bizarre gun nut thinking that they'd be able to protect themselves in a gun fight with a real opponent. Of course, for almost all of them the only gun fight they'll ever witness is on their flatscreen.
Delete"I didn't think the post was about the AWB as much as the bizarre gun nut thinking that they'd be able to protect themselves in a gun fight with a real opponent."
DeleteYes, it's worked out pretty well in Iraq and Afghanistan so far. What's your definition of a "real" opponent?
Someone trained and serious.
DeleteSo these "weapons of war" that we so desperately need to "get off our streets" are actually useless at engaging in war? What's the big deal then?
ReplyDeleteYou miss the point, while these may not be very useful against a well equiped military, they can be quite deadly.
DeleteYou are familiar with what happened in Paris last Novemeber?
TS - Don't forget the ironic silence when we ask why civilian law enforcement agencies would then need these "weapons of war".
DeleteI am familiar with what happened in Paris. Maybe we should ban them like they did, huh?
DeleteThough Obama isn't familiar with what happened. He still says this doesn't happen in other counties with strict gun control... just a month after it happened... while in Paris.
"Don't forget the ironic silence when we ask why civilian law enforcement agencies would then need these "weapons of war"."
DeleteThat would be interesting, law enforcement required to carry revolvers and pump shotguns again. It would likely reduce the number of rounds fired though.
"He still says this doesn't happen in other counties with strict gun control.."
DeleteI believe what he says is it doesn't happen in other countries with strict gun control WITH THE FREQUENCY that it happens here. But, don't hesitate to misrepresent what your opponent says.
He didn't say anything about "frequency". Listen:
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NO88M4geq7A
Besides, even if he did, France has had the frequency of mass shootings that the US had this past year. And if we considered body count, France had way more dead- before even accounting for population. How can he stand up in Paris and say something like that so soon after the tragedy?
" France has had the frequency of mass shootings that the US had this past year."
DeleteWhaaaat?
"if we considered body count, France had way more dead- before even accounting for population."
Huh? Are you kidding?
The USA had four mass shootings last year totaling 37 fatalities. France had three mass shootings totaling 145 fatalities. Why so incredulous, Mike? You don't watch the news?
DeleteIsn't there a difference between mass shootings and mass murder?
DeleteRemind me again how the world's mightiest military power is doing against those herders in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteAnd how did that war against rice farmers in SE Asia end up?
orlin sellers
OK--fine. So the militiaman on the left has nearly 2/3rds the body fat percentage of typical "gun control" hero Michael Moore--does that mean that any rounds he fires will bounce harmlessly off the lean, mean fighting machine on the right when he walks into his ambush?
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see the physics of that explained.
Fat boy there, will never see the bullet coming, much less be able to do anything about it, even with his big gun.
ReplyDeleteWho do you think would win in a fight between these two if the guy on the right didn't have a gun? Let that sink in a moment.
ReplyDelete