Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i don't know what the hell is an "assault rifle" since that's a politically manufactured neologism just like "death tax" or "partial-birth abortion" or "saddam's weapons of mass destruction," but the advantages of a 30-round magazine in a home-defense carbine are clear from a tactical standpoint.
|
Thanks for being as misleading as FOX News but we already discussed this. It is NOT a media conspiracy. Assault weapon means a weapon designed for FORWARD MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS, also called an assault (like the assault on Iwo Jima or the Surge in Iraq). EVEN THE MANUFACTURERS OWN WEBSITES DOCUMENT THE HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AR/M RIFLES BY THE MILITARY SPECIFICALLY FOR COMBAT, PERIOD.
By the way, Saddam really did have WMD, just twenty years ago. How do we know this? Uncle Sam has the receipts from when America armed Iraq against the Iranians
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
in case of riots/looting like LA in 92 or new orleans in 2006 (this shit happens in 'merica i'm afraid) again the advantage of a large capacity magazine vs. a mob is evident.
.
|
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. In the Riots the only armed people killing anybody were the Korean merchants who ended up killing many unarmed people which only further antagonized the situation here in LA, and two decades later there is still animosity and mistrust between Black and Brown folks and Koreans. People didn't need carbine rifles to defend themselves, people were actually rioting in reaction and retaliation to the RISE in gun violence in LA which peaked in 1991/92 just before the Uprising. It wasn't a blood thirsty mob, it was mass civil disobedience and political protest. Only the LAPD and the National Guard who occupied LA for several months ascribe to the narrative that it was a dangerous mob or cabal. If MORE people had been trying to "defend" themselves with firearms like those Koreans, the riot would have escalated into a Rwanda type situation. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT IN OUR COMMUNITIES? VIOLENT DIVISIONS, INCREASED HOSTILITIES, AND MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR KILLING?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
I would. cops are not trained just to handle firearms, they are trained, as you very well know, to treat the populace like militaristic enemies, to be ordered around, feared, and corralled.
The fully armed police do not stop or prevent crime because they are not TASKED to do so.
|
Agreed completely, but again, they are the least trained proficiently in shooting. So how are citizens and the public trained
ANY better to prevent crime if law enforcement
aren't? While indeed many gun owners are also well trained and practiced, many others are not exactly enthusiasts. Further, half of the current homicides in this country are "crimes of passion" or spur of the moment over-reactions. IF THE POLICE OVERREACT AND KILL PEOPLE, WHY SHOULD WE TRUST THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL? I mean come on, there are people driving around with bumper stickers saying, "Where is Lee Harvey Oswald when you need him?" There are people who honestly support Zimmerman in the Trayvon killing. There are even worse people who are just planed deranged assholes who get off on harming other human beings like sadistic fucks. Do we want to trust these people with firearms in general? Again, I DON'T