Why Can’t Liberals Just Accept these Facts about Assault Rifles?

AR-15 rifle

One thing is certain: politicians, particularly liberal democrats, are trying to curtail your ability to own an “assault rifle.”

They’d love for you not to have any guns, but right now the favorite gun to harp on is any long arm that has a removable magazine and an imposing “military style grip.”

Now as any responsible gun owner knows, an “assault rifle” is a completely made-up term meant to drum up fears in the hearts of moms across the nation. Nothing seems more evil than a weapon whose entire purpose was designed around “assault” as opposed to protection.

The truth is an assault rifle is nothing more than a rifle, and rifles have been a mainstay for millions of Americans who take self defense into their own hands.

Part of the problem with assault rifles is they’re east to pick on because they’re commonly used in one type of shooting and one type of shooting only.

Mass shootings.

And that’s what Democrats want the American public to think about… to obsess over… to become upset about.

Mass shootings.

But for all of the hullabaloo, liberal Democrats seem to have overlooked one key piece of data that renders their “assault rifles are evil” argument completely impotent.

And that is, crime with assault rifles constitutes the smallest fraction of the overall gun homicide rate inside of the U.S. A recent article from the New York Times (of all places) shows how misplaced the concern over assault rifles is.

In the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year.

Little handguns do.

And more importantly, particular segments of the population are responsible for the majority of gun crime, not a particular style of weapon.

What liberals don’t want you to know is that most of the gun crime seen in the U.S. happens among impoverished black communities who suffer from an entrenched gang warfare mentality.

As The Times notes: “Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.”

So you have to wonder, why aren’t those figures making it to the media?

Why hasn’t the violent activity of welfare-dependent communities participating in rival warfare been targeted with the same kind of fervor as assault rifles?

Why are AR-15 rifles being demonized, especially when assault rifles like the AR-15 are responsible for a minuscule amount of the overall homicide rate.

After all, according to the FBI, in 2012 only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle.

The real answer is that it just doesn’t fit the story the liberals are trying to tell.

Rather than pin gun violence on a person, they try and pin the violence on the gun.

Unfortunately, when the numbers don’t line up in their favor, they just yell louder and louder and push for more legislation because that’s what makes sense to them.

Even though it doesn’t.

And right now they’re closer than they’ve been in a while to totally banning “assault rifles.”

Before they do, discover what you can do to protect your second amendment rights with an off the books AR-15.

Click Here to Learn How To Build Your Own AR-15 “Ghost Gun.” No Serial Number. No Registration. 100% Legal.

  • phoneitin

    Only 322 people were killed with a rifle? Seems pretty high to me.

    • therain

      Compare with other type of guns, like those used by gangs.

      • Mark Owen

        I have a Smith&Wesson AR-15 it is semi auto and cannot be made to fire full auto even with a new sear! At least thats what the manufacturer claims.

  • MegaMouseGW

    They have no clue what an assault weapon is and never will. All they see is a thing that looks like what the military uses. What we as civilians use are NOT assault weapons, but fancy sporting rifles.

    • James Andrews

      Exactly.

      • Peter Osborne

        Of course you do understand the AGN (anti gun nuts) don’t care. Their goal is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. No lie too big , no law too restrictive in the AGN playbook, to them, the end fully justifies the means no matter how insane.

        • olf

          We need to charge the liberal left wings with hate crimes against humanity. They are pushing the crazies out in the streets chasing their lies. Yelling race and hate every day.

          • ernaldin

            You just described the media traitors….

        • W.C.

          Some are even starting to speculate that Sandy Hook was a staged event just to give ammo to the AGN.

          • olf

            Nothing would surprise me at this point. We know what evil looks like, we see it every day.

          • hepette .

            another wacko conspiracy by repuke baggers

          • helen sabin

            what or who are repuke baggers?? Meaning?

          • homegirl

            Don’t pretend you don’t know as you are surrounded by Republican Tea Baggers on this site.

          • danstewart

            Republican tea baggers ????? Tea party is NOT republican,

          • homegirl

            No Tea Baggers in the Republican seats in the House? Then why are the political pundits always commenting on John Boehner’s inability to control the Tea Party members of the Republican caucus?

          • danstewart

            FYI, the entrenched repubs are about as bad as the dems. The TEA party is comprised of repubs, dems, independents & libertereins, as well as anyone else who wants to join. We run as repub because, as yet, there is only a 2 party system. Eventually, we will change that. Do you even know what TEA stands for?? If you don’t, it’s ” Taxed Enough Already”. If you want to pay more taxes, feel free.

          • b4k9zp

            Nor a single one. All of the republicans in the House ran as REpublicans and were elected as republicans. When Boehner is a democrat in disguise, it’s no wonder that the real republicans don’t pay any attention to him.

          • homegirl

            “When
            Boehner is a democrat in disguise,
            it’s no wonder that the real
            republicans don’t pay any attention to
            him.”

            When the supporters begin “eating their young” you know their political power is short lived.

          • b4k9zp

            Republicans aren’t eating their young. They just don’t pay any attention to people who prove their lack of acumen by voting with the opposition on every subject, and who lack the will to oppose their political opponents on any subject.

            Liberals are a disease on the body politic, and prove it every day.

          • b4k9zp

            Nope. Don’t know that . I just see people who defend the second amendment and the constitution of the USA, and some idiotic liberals who attack both.

          • danstewart

            Check the FBI crime statistics, NO murders occurred at Sandy Hook.

          • b4k9zp

            Correct. FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table no. 8–Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, by City, 2012, for Newtown Connecticut, shows ZERO homicides reported by Law Enforcement officials in 2012 in that city.

          • b4k9zp

            Are you 100 percent dead certain that it is a conspiracy? And that the facts are not as stated?

          • danstewart

            Per the FBI, no murders occurred at Sandy Hook.

          • b4k9zp

            FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Table no. 8–Offenses Known to Law
            Enforcement, by City, 2012, for Newtown Connecticut, shows ZERO
            homicides reported by Law Enforcement officials in 2012 in that city

          • OCDiver

            wouldn’t surprise me one bit

          • b4k9zp

            Looking at what little evidence hasn’t been suppressed in that incident, it is not surprising that rational, thinking people think that the sandy hook event was in fact staged. It is known that (1) there was an FEMA “exercise” scheduled for the Sandy Hook school building that day, in which the scenario was a lone gunman “shooting up the school”. (2) the sheriff of that county was and is a rabid anti-gunner, who was and is perfectly willing to lie; (3) that an AR-15 style RIFLE was videotaped during daylight hours shortly after the alleged assault being taken from the FRONT SEAT of a vehicle; (4) that later, after dark, a semi-automatic shotgun was videotaped being taken from the TRUNK of a vehicle, (5) that photographs of many of the alleged “child victims” were published online within hours of the incident; (6) that many of those “child victims” were seen standing in rows behind obama when he made his speech demanding additional gun laws while standing (figuratively speaking) on their “still warm bodies”. It is suspected that Adam Lanza MAY have shot himself the day before the incident.

        • James Maxwell

          Their goal is to disarm America so we can be over run by
          their Socialist Democrat idiots who want to destroy our
          nation and install a dictator ship. What the AGN fools
          do not understand is that they will become the slaves of
          those who they so blindly followed. They will not be
          rewarded to be rulers but will also be the slave to those
          who they served.

          • Peter Osborne

            Yes, I understand that and have for some years. As have the readers here. That’s why we stand firm on the 2nd Amendment.

          • tinkerunique

            TO ALL who view this post : LOOK UP the “Efficiency of Militia Bill” 1902, and the “Dick Act” of 1909. THEY define “militia and ‘limit” the guns to use. FACTS to know.

          • Tec Sg Beatty

            Take a gander at the Miller decision from 1939. According to that Supreme Court decision, the 2A protects the Right to machineguns.

          • b4k9zp

            Right–any weapon that is of use to the maintenance of a well regulated militia (to use the exact wording of the 1939 U.S. V. Miller decision.

          • OCDiver

            Well, if they “‘limit’ guns to use” then they are illegal laws violating the 2nd Amendment, because the 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed upon” period!!

          • tinkerunique

            You, along with several others have noticed that fact. Take notes + take those notes to the polls = VOTE the dummy’s OUT.

          • OCDiver

            AMEN!!!

          • tinkerunique

            I like your kitty, but that’s the “easy way” to get pigeons. Too easy. My “pet” roasts them first. We eat “on the fly”.

          • OCDiver

            LOL

            I’ve always thought of it as taking down demon dogs that’ve been tormenting it too long. Kind of like the Conservative that’s fed up with the lib/soc ba$tard$

          • b4k9zp

            Any law that “limits” the kinds of guns that a person can own is flatly and completely unconstitutional, and always will be.

          • Hipshot60

            Absolutely correct.

          • homegirl

            You don’t know what a Social Democracy is. Research the Social Democracies of the Scandinavian countries. Sweden just had an election and 90%+ of the voters went to the polls. So, democracy is safe in Social Democracies. I fear that it may not be safe in the USA.

          • Dale626

            I know you know this, but for those who have forgotten, the USA is not a democracy. It is a Representative Republic.
            That is one reason we have the electoral college. Something the progressives are intent on getting rid of.

          • b4k9zp

            Agreed. it was bad enough when the 17th amendment, which took the election of U.S. Senators out of the hands of the state legislators, was ratified. Now the liberal “Democrats” want to destroy the only remaining thing that stands in their way to create a true democracy so they can rule forever by manufacturing illegal votes to give them the majority in every election. .

          • Proud_to_be_American
          • homegirl

            As am I. Having lived under several political regimes starting with Democracy in the USA, Fascism under Franco in Spain, Social Democracy in Scandinavia and currently corporate oligarchy in the USA.

            Seems we all have different ideas about the methods of governing our Republic.

          • b4k9zp

            the only oligarchs in this country are the four liberal (and one wish-washy) supreme court justice who violate the constitution with their every pronouncement.

            Social democracy never works. For democracy always boils down to two wolves voting to eat the one defenseless sheep. In a constitutional republic, the sheep is armed, and has a big guard dog to protect him when he sleeps.

          • homegirl

            Your inability to comprehend written English evokes pity in my being. Poor thing, seems it is too late for you.

          • b4k9zp

            I comprehend written English far better than you. You show that you have no concept of the meaning of the words “liberty” or “freedom”; or the concept of “God-given rights” with which one is born, and the difference between a right and a privilege that you think can be given or taken away by a government (or another person).

            As I stated, the only oligarchs in this country are the liberals on the supreme court (and I will add, the liberals in congress) who violate the constitution with every action they take.

          • robo

            homegirl—I think I love you! The Scandinavians have it down absolutely right. I wish I lived there as the USA is so full of those right wing screwball as*ho*es

          • OCDiver

            get a room

          • b4k9zp

            So then why don’t you move there right now. You’d fit right in and would be among the first that the socialist democrat wolves would eat.

          • Tec Sg Beatty

            Fine. Then move there.

          • OCDiver

            That’s because true Americans want NOTHING to do with Socialist agendas!!

          • b4k9zp

            Since this country was not founded to be a democracy, which the founding fathers distrusted as much, if not more than they distrusted the nearly absolute monarchy they had kicked out of this country in the American Revolution, the founding fathers set it up to be a Constitutional Republic, with democratically elected representatives, and a written “Supreme Law of the Land” which was to limit the powers of the federal government and keep it from trying to destroy the intrinsic, inborn, unalienable rights of the people. Democracies always wind up destroying the rights of any minority, and of any individual, by majority vote.

          • Tec Sg Beatty

            And my goal is to deny them that ability. With peace, hopefully. With VIOLENCE, if necessary. Their choice.

        • Dale626

          Have you noticed that when we have semi-automatic rifles, they are called ASSAULT RIFLES. But when the police or feds have full auto rifles, they, and the press call them PDRs, Personal Defense Weapons.

        • Tec Sg Beatty

          Let ’em repeal it. Supreme Court precedence shows we don’t need the 2A to have arms. All the 2A does is tell “government” to keep their damned hands off our RIGHTS.

          • b4k9zp

            Right. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in United States V. Cruikshank [92 U.S. 542] (1875) said that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend upon the existence of the 2nd amendment to protect it. the right existed before either the Constitution or the 2nd amendment were written and ratified.

          • Peter Osborne

            Yes, as per the Declaration of Independence. Yet there are some 8,000 or so laws restricting firearms ownership in the USA. The vast majority of which result in the law abiding becoming prey for the criminal class. But there is no need to go thru it again here , we’re the choir , after all.

    • Shipwreck

      Agreed, but the author of this piece perpetuated the error.

    • banjojack

      It has been illegal to manufacture selective fire weapons for the civilian market since the mid 1980s.

      • Buckindaburg

        Don’t confuse the issue. A lot of folks are still having trouble understanding what a semi-automatic is. Selective is that position that is unavailable EXCEPT when a weapon is capable of firing in automatic mode.
        So…the over the counter “assault” rifle has only a safe or fire position and the trigger must be squeezed each time the shooter wants to fire a round.
        And as one person already mentioned…a baseball bat can be an assault weapon if it is used to assault someone. A rifle cannot assault because to do so requires conscious intent and a rifle does not intend anything.

        • helen sabin

          Most liberals have NO IDEA of the difference between a semi auto and full auto is. then throw in a revolver and they are dumbfounded.

      • MegaMouseGW

        No it has not. It is illegal for a civilian without the proper license to own a selective fire weapon. Manufacturers can make them all day long, but getting the correct class 3 ffl is not easy at all. I have my Class 3 ffl and still do not want a full auto weapon. Way too hard to control.

        • Dale626

          Aimed, semi-auto fire is always more accurate. And, only hits count.

        • banjojack

          Once more, the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 makes it illegal to manufacture full auto weapons specifically for the civilian market. It does not make ownership illegal , and I never said it did. FOPA 1986 also does not address foreign manufactured full auto weapons. I have included a llnk.

          http://iawca.org/automatic-weapons-faq

          • b4k9zp

            It was not the “Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986” itself that made the manufacture of fully-automatic weapons for the civilian market illegal, but the infamous Hughes amendment to that otherwise decent and needed federal law. Article I, section five paragraph three of the Constitution, that reads: “Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to
            time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment
            require secresy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on
            any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be
            entered on the journal.”

            The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 was brought up late one night by the democratic party that was trying any means they could to derail the FOPA. They waited until well into the early morning of the day had been declared the final day for debate on the FOPA to bring the Hughes Amendment to a vote. The democratic leader of the House (the Senate was run by the Republicans, IIRC, in that session (who was later convicted on several felony charges) called for a voice vote on the amendment, and he declared that the “AYE” votes outnumbered the “NO” votes, even though the majority of the witnesses and the members of the house present believed that the “NO” votes had outshouted the “AYES”. And even though more than 20% of the members present demanded that a recorded vote be taken, the democrat who was leading the democrats in the House at the time “deemed” the issue was settled, in violation of the COnstitution, as usual.

          • banjojack

            I was not aware of some of this, however, I am not surprised. I am surprised it was not vetoed.

          • b4k9zp

            Unfortunately, a President cannot veto individual parts of bills presented to him (“a line-item veto”). If he objects to any provision of a bill, he has to veto the entire bill, and send the bill back to the house in which the bill originated, with his objections. Then that house is supposed to discuss the vetoed bill, and either attempt to over-ride the bill (which requires a vote of two thirds of the members present (or more) ) and then sends it to the other house. If the bill fails to gather the two thirds majority in that house, the bill stands as a vetoed bill. The originating house can remove the parts to which the president objects and resubmit the revised bill (without the offending parts) to the other house, which can propose changes to it as with any bill, and after a revised bill is finally agreed upon by both houses, that revised bill can be sent to the president for his signature again.

        • b4k9zp

          Actually, the infamous “Hughes Amendment” to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 made it illegal to manufacture any new fully automatic weapons in the United States except for the military. That illegal and unconstitutional amendment to what was otherwise a good and needed bill, was adopted in the late evening, early morning hours by a “voice vote” which the democrat in charge of that chamber of the Congress “deemed” to have approved the amendment, even though a large majority of the witnesses and congresspeople present said that the NO votes clearly had the majority. Even when more than 20% of the members of congress who were present (which included several democrats) demanded that a recorded vote be taken on the amendment, the democrat in charge of the session ignored all calls for a recorded vote, in violation of the Constitutional requirement to take one when more than 20% of the members present demand it (Article I, section five, paragraph two (or three) : “Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secresy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”

    • W.C.

      Black nylon cosmetics does not an assault rifle make.

    • 5live5

      Hell a Baseball bat can be an assault weapon in the right hands! They going to ban those, too???

      • tinkerunique

        Cars have made drunk drivers kill many times more people, than a gun made somebody pull the trigger, why not ban cars ? <( Liberal Logic.

        • homegirl

          “Liberal logic, only in your mind.

          • b4k9zp

            Liberal “logic” as exhibited by yourself and your like in your every post, every time you comment on anything.

          • homegirl

            You have sunk to the lowest possible level in discussion which is the right of others to disagree with you. Keep posting but I shall not respond.

          • b4k9zp

            Really, how is your comment, where you obviously believe that what anyone says in opposition to your irrational and illogical statements is wrong, anything but an attempt to censor the speech of others?

        • 5live5

          Simple, those are something the liberals WANT!

      • banjojack

        You may wish to Google FBI stats on murder weapons. Bludgeons,(clubs) were used in more murders for at least the past 5 years than ALL long guns, of which so-called “assault rifles” are only a small percentage. Matter of fact, so-called “assaut rifles” were used in less than 1% of the total murders last year. Another embarrassing fact that will make progressive blood boil: The US has the lowest per capita murder rate in the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of Canada. According to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in spite of Canada’s far more restrictive gun laws, the murder rate among Canada’s non-Hispanic white population the that of the US is virtually identical, and comparable to the murder rate among the same demographic in most Western European countries.

        • 5live5

          Hey, I’ve owned guns since I was 18 and I’m 63 now. served 18 months in that tropical paradise known as Vietnam as a door gunner and a crew chief. I know what you are trying to call assault weapons. I fired my first long gun at 11 years old. I in turn taught my girls to shoot at 12 years old.
          you want to talk about gun laws that don’t work? Look at London England. England has some of the strictest gun laws you can find and a few years ago a man drove down a street in London shooting at people he happened upon! If people want guns they’re going to get them no matter what the laws are, ESPECIALLY in a country like the US who shares a border with Mexico where drugs flow freely across. If there’s a buck to be made, you think the cartels and others won’t supply them?

          • OCDiver

            That’s what lib/soc’s don’t get ….. outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them!!

            When seconds count the Police are only minutes away!! Who’s gonna protect their crybaby a$$es when only the outlaws have the guns and the Police are out of position to help them?

          • 5live5

            But it says “Serve AND protect”!!!! I respect quite a lot of them but they just can’t be everywhere all the time!! If you depend on that in every situation I hope your burial insurance is paid up!

          • OCDiver

            My point exactly! 🙂

          • b4k9zp

            The supreme court, in multiple cases, has held consistently that, despite the mottos many police departments emblazon on their vehicles and their public buildings, no police department, sheriff’s department or any state police department has the responsibility to provide any protection whatever to any individual, unless that individual has been taken into custody by the police agency. That means that even if a police officer or sheriff’s deputy sees you being robbed, raped or murdered by a criminal right in front of him, he is not legally required to protect you.

            Most cops know that, and also know that they cannot be everywhere all the time. And they know that any police agency large enough to have an armed police officer on “every street corner” 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, would be prohibitively expensive, and would be extremely restrictive of personal rights.

          • 5live5

            True as that may be, there are still some very good ones out there that still believe in that “protect” part regardless of what the courts say.

          • b4k9zp

            Sadly, they are no longer the majority in many police agencies.

    • Mark

      Wow do you really believe fancy sporting rifle. LOL……..

      • Corky

        Hand one of these so called assault weapons to one of our brave military now serving and ask him to take your bad ass assault weapon into battle and see how fast he tells you to take a hike

        • Mark

          Wow so your telling a veteran that it is an Assault Rifle, so who is the Minion, I believe it’s the nut cases like you that don’t have a clue…….

          • Just Old

            Your reply to Corky is showing everyone just how stupid you are. Try reading the entire post if you can. Then get someone with a little bit more intelligence to explain it to you.

          • tinkerunique

            Just being nosey = Past Seabee questioning = Ever have a “conversation” with the MK-19 ? TRUE “Rock & Roll”.

          • Dale626

            I would hate to be on the recieving end of that conversation.
            Now that is a REAL assault weapon, which by the way, we are NOT allowed to own.

          • b4k9zp

            Well, you can still own one, though, as the democratic party intended when they passed the unconstitutional and quite racist National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938, fully automatic weapons are prohibitively expensive, and require a very burdensome, tedious and totally unconstitutional licensing and registration process to obtain permission to exercise your unalienable, constitutionally protected civil right of possession of such a weapon, that even the 1939 U.S. V. Miller court case recognized was a right.

          • b4k9zp

            Your comment makes no sense whatever, which isn’t surprising.

      • olf

        Are you a minion ?

      • tinkerunique

        I have a not-so-fancy sporting rifle. It has put food on the table many times. I can hit the center of a target at 200 yards. It is an OLD .303 British, with a synthetic stock, extended butt with an agatized Maple pistol-grip cap. The sling is mounted on the left side like many military rifles. ON TOP is a 3-9 40mm scope that will accept a “hood”, I also use a bipod at the range and CAN shoot like a sniper. That SMLE used to be a military gun. As many people know, the .303 will hold 1/2 a box of shells. It usually only takes ONE shot to put food on the family, or keep a preditor from bothering the livestock.

        • b4k9zp

          Yes, the British SMLE was an “assault rifle” used by the BRITISH army (and those of the Commonwealth nations) from about 1914 through about 1968 or so. It was and is a great weapon.

      • MegaMouseGW

        I own several AR platform rifles. They are much more accurate for what I use them for. I have a friend in Texas that owns 1500 acres of dairy farm. He ahs a problem with: ground hogs, rock chucks, feral pigs, wild hogs , and a few other things tat dig holes in his grazing areas. Him and I both go out to the fields and play “Exploding Varmints”. As he puts it he would rather have a very accurate rifle and be able to protect his investment of $15k per dairy cow and have a bit of fun than use a rifle that is not as accurate and possibly lose the chance to remove something that destroys his land and on occasion one of his herd. No normal rifle can match the shear accuracy and downrange slinging than an AR platform rifle can.

        • Proud_to_be_American

          Love that video!

        • Mark

          Nothing wrong with that, love to go shoot Varmnts to…….

        • b4k9zp

          Depends on what you mean by “down range accuracy”. For most AR platform rifles that’s limited to 300-400 yards. If you’re talking about 800-1200 yards, I suppose a really well set up AR-10 National Match rifle could take out a groundhog, feral hog or other varmints at that range. But personally, I’d rather have a bolt-action Remington 700 or Ruger Model 77, or Pre1964 style Model 70 Winchester.

    • tinkerunique

      TRUE assault weapons WERE BANNED in 1938. They class any gun as an “assault weapon” because it “LOOKS military”. What about all the 30-06 rifles used to hunt with ? There are more than a few old “03A3 Springfields “in the field” that have been ‘sporterized with custom stocks and optics.

      • b4k9zp

        Not correct. They were not banned. They were just made prohibitively expensive, by requiring that in order to have one, you had first to have a firearms license issued by the federal government, and then submit to having a full set of fingerprints taken, and an identifiable “mug shot” taken, and then having a complete FBI background check run on you, and then you had to get a letter attesting your civic virtue from the “chief law enforcement officer” of the area, to get a license allowing you to buy one of the restricted “class three destructive devices” that were defined in both the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 National Firearms Act. Each of the federal licenses required a fee, which even in the 1930s was not inexpensive. Then on top of all that, you had to pay an unconstitutional “transfer tax” (which worked the same as the infamous “poll taxes” that were required to be able to vote in many states up until 1964) — if you didn’ tpay that unconstitutional tax, you could not exercise your constitutionally protected civil right of owning and carrying the same weapons (if not better ones) as the military and police used. That transfer tax more than doubled the cost of an M1928A1 “Tommy Gun” or a Browning M1918A4 BAR fully-automatic rifle.

        The M-1 Garand was not banned. But it was and remains a true rifle that was used in assaulting many positions in both World War Two and Korea (and early in Vietnam).

    • Hipshot60

      The left want’s to disarm every American so they can create their Socialist Utopia. But an armed populas is clearly standing in the way. They figure if they can remove all the so-called assult weapons, they would have a better chance of achieving their goal. They know if they Ban and try to collect any so called assault weapon, they will have a revolution on their hands. This is why the Obama Administration is going to go foreward with the U.N. Small Arms Treaty and let the U.N. try to collect them. After the elections in November you have what is called the “Lame Duck Session” of congress. All current members remain in office till the 20th of Januiary when the newly elected get sworn in. This short period is when Obama is going to make his move.
      Remember now, the Senate passes Appointments with a simple majority (51) thanks to Harry Reed. But a Two Thirds majority (67) in the Senate is still needed to ratify a treaty. This won’t stop Obama or Harry Reed. They will insist that a vote of 51 is all that is necessary to ratify the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. I urge all of you to call your Senator and tell them to oppose this tactic and spread the word.
      BTW…………. The House has nothing to do with Treaties.

  • Paul Chapman

    They are ill informed opinionated dumbasses! typical liberal agenda, “I don’t want it, there for you can’t have It !”

    • Combatvet52

      That’s the usual Horse Dung I don’t like it so you can’t have it, all these liberals belong in the toilet.

      • robo

        —-and you belong in the city dump and you won’t smell a thing, because you both smell the same.

        • Combatvet52

          Hey screw you don’t mess with this VET, you must clean toilets.

          • robo

            I just answered, you flaming queer!!!!!!!

          • b4k9zp

            Personal insults like yours prove only three things, robo–that you are less intelligent than those you insult, that you know you don’t have any facts, logic or reasoning to support your own idiotic opinions, and that you know you’ve lost the argument.

          • Mark

            So let me see you insult American and they response with more insults and you call that intelligent and you win the argument,,,,LOL……Go back to School…….

          • b4k9zp

            Only people l ike you respond to insults with further insults. In other words people who are not very intelligent, and love to prove it.

        • Paul Chapman

          robo, you are one dumbass mindless Kool-Aid guzzling shit for brains liberal dimwitocrat puppet. For all the name calling you haven’t put together a coherent thought on anything other than you have the thought process of a narrow minded camel flea!

      • robo

        I;m in the toliet now—-could you please flush. I real don’t care that you are a repuGlican!!!!!

        • Jeffrey Barker

          Brainless fool.

        • b4k9zp

          If he flushed, you would be part of the waste that is flushed into the septic system.

      • robo

        —and you belong with the sh*t in the toilet!

        • b4k9zp

          Keep insulting people, and you prove that you are identical with what is flushed down the toilet.

        • Combatvet52

          I must say this you are the most disgusting person ever to make comments and i don’t care if your a socialist commie liberal no brain.
          I would have like to see you on the front line fighting along side the other brave men that i fought with, you most likely would pee your pants and run.

          • robo

            For your information, I was in Viet Nam for 2 stints. I think I did serve my country very well.

          • Combatvet52

            Then why are you talking like one big horses a$$ all the vets i deal with are very pleasant I’m a big supporter of the Wounded Warriors, I was wounded in Korea
            you know the forgotten war, we never forget the guys that didn’t come home.
            I’m ending this now with thanks for serving and change your outlook on life.

          • ROBO

            iT’S JUST YOU. i’D LIKE TO LIKE YOU, BUT—WHAT ELSE CAN I SAY. WELL, WELL, OK—IT”S JUST YOU HAVE AN UNPLEASANT ODOR! THERE i JUST SAID IT.

          • b4k9zp

            And you keep proving that you are the least intelligent person posting on this or any other forum.

      • b4k9zp

        You’re insulting horses. It’s more like pig dung.

      • b4k9zp

        You’re insulting horses. It’s more like pig manure.

      • robo

        Why would we want to join you? Didn’t you bring your own feces or is that your brain?

      • helen sabin

        They would clog the sewers – how about we just put them in the middle east as they like living with rulers.

        • Combatvet52

          Rodger that helen

      • babby660

        wave on your way down, won’t you?

    • The “Liberal” political philosophy might well reduce to “Eat your galoshes and wear your oatmeal. They’re good for you. And if you don’t, I’ll have you arrested by Officer Friendly and his ninja-suited SWAT squad buddies.”

      I’ve long since come to the conclusion that these “Liberals” are thought-blocking on what Officer Friendly et al. would very much like to do if they got the chance to do up those same “Liberals.”

      • leadfoot320

        IT WOULD BE SAFER ! (FOR OFFICER FRIENDLY)

      • robo

        OMG! I just saw your picture!!!!! I’m outta here!!!!!!!

        • Oldvet

          GOOD !!!!!!!

      • robo

        You are right!!! I’ve been found out!!!! WAAH! WAAH! WAAH!

        You look Gay—but no problem.

        • b4k9zp

          Typical insults from a liberal.

    • douglassummers

      Don’t you mean –conservatives? Can’t have the right to vote -can’t have the right to an abortion-can’t have the right to marry –can’t have the right to live without fear of police brutality –can’t have the right to immigration–can’t have the right to breath clean or clean water.So before you you say –“can’t”–consider what you mean–then think it over.

      • helen sabin

        This is utter nonsense. Who says they say you can’t have the right to vote. What they want and I am a conservative is that you have to PROVE you are a citizen to vote. You also can’t vote twice – once at your college and once in your home state. What is wrong with that?

        And please don’t tell me they can’t get to the polls – with ID in hand….they have to have ID to buy cigarettes, to get a doc to give medical care, to drive a car, etc etc. YOU THINK IT OVER and post your PROOF -we will be waiting to see what YOU come up with.

        • actor44

          The marker found on the D.N.A. of the Progressive/Liberal/Socialist ect. has been determined to be an defect. This explains their twisted conclusions ,and their wild indictments. Their actions murdered more than 200 million people in the 20th century. When confronted with this the look in their eyes never changes.

          • Hipshot60

            You’re correct about the DNA. Researchers have discovered a defective gene and have linked it to Progressive, Liberal, and Socialist behavior in those who have the gene. Saw an article about it in a Medical Journal several years ago. In the 20th Century, the quest for the perfect Socialist Utopia has caused the deaths of over 121 Million people. It’s time to give up that quest which will never be successful.

          • Al Toth

            Wasn’t a defective gene, it was called the smart gene lacking in most conservatives.

          • bxarmybrat

            Keep telling yourself that and remember Hitler and Stalin probably had it too.

          • b4k9zp

            Yes, Hitler and Stalin were both liberal socialists. And they lacked everything but an overwhelming desire to murder anyone who disagreed with them, something that seems to be common among liberals.

          • tinkerunique

            Killing people that don’t agree? THAT sounds too Muslim. Controlling Theocracy. Original post was about guns, NOT personal politics. The agenda to disarm “the people” is a CONTROL issue. Some would like to believe that if you call a LEGAL hunting rifle/carbine an assault weapon, just because it LOOKS military, people will believe it. IF I keep spouting that the moon is made out of green cheese, will you believe it ? Cars carrying drunks, kill many times more people than guns kill people. WHY NOT ban cars.

          • Karen Lee King

            Does that include my 12 gauge pump with a pistol grip? Then they can have my shotgun, shells first and my guns bullets first! 🙂

          • b4k9zp

            according to Senator Feinstein’s 1994 Assault weapon ban, a shotgun with a pistol grip is indeed an assault weapon.

          • DDofAL

            then why is it that conservatives must be elected to fix the messes of the progressives??AND AS A POINT WHY DID YOU PUT UP THE DUMMY KERRY THAT WHEN RELEASED HIS COLLEGE SCORES WERE A POINT LOWER THAN BUSH’S ON A MUCH EASIER STUDY COURSE?

          • robo

            Don’t tase me Bro, i’ll do you.

          • DDofAL

            I’D TASE ANY OF YOU SYCOPHANTS JUST TO SHUT YOUR BABBLING UP— THAT GUY WAS AND IDIOT JUST LIKE THE KID THAT GUSHED OF O–AND NOW THAT HE HAS A RECORD ANY WANTING TO FOLLOW—- WELL DOES THE NAME JONESTOWN RING ANY BELLS?
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on Why Can’ t Liberals Just Accept these Facts about Assault Rifles?

          • b4k9zp

            Keep proving your own ignorance by insulting others. You’re doing a great job of proving who is the least intelligent person on this forum.

          • ROBO

            I know, I know —it was 152 until I started communicating with yokels.

          • b4k9zp

            You continue to prove that your comments are lies, for you prove your IQ is less than zero.

          • babby660

            why is it that conservatives so frequently try to insult those who oppose them?

          • b4k9zp

            That’s quite a lie, because it is liberals who do the insulting. Nothing I stated was an insult, just the truth for robo continues to prove that he is less intelligent than anyone whom he insults by insulting them.

          • babby660

            Frankly, I try to avoid insulting folks — would never accuse them of having “an IQ less than zero.” And you?

          • Guest

            The dopamine receptor D4 is a G protein-coupled receptor encoded by the DRD4 gene.[1] As with other dopamine receptor subtypes, the D4 receptor is activated by the neurotransmitter dopamine. It is linked to many neurological and psychiatric conditions including schizophrenia, Parkinsons disease[citation needed], bipolar disorder[citation needed], addictive behaviors, and eating disorders[citation needed] such as anorexia nervosa[citation needed], bulimia nervosa[citation needed] and binge eating[citation needed

            Fowler and colleagues Jaime E. Settle and Christoper T. Dawkes, also of UC San Diego, and Harvard University’s Nicholas A. Christakis hypothesized that people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average, they deduced.

            A new study has concluded that ideology is not just a social thing; it’s built into the DNA, borne along by a gene called DRD4. Tagged “the liberal gene,” DRD4 is the first specific bit of human DNA that predisposes people to certain political views, the study’s authors claim.

            The human protein is coded by the DRD4 on chromosome 11 located in 11p15.5.

          • Hipshot60

            The dopamine receptor D4 is a G protein-coupled receptor encoded by the DRD4 gene. As with other dopamine receptor subtypes, the D4 receptor is activated by the neurotransmitter dopamine. It is linked to many neurological and psychiatric conditions including Schizophrenia, Parkinsons disease, Bipolar disorder, Addictive behaviors, and Eating disorders such as Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa and Binge eating.

            Fowler and colleagues Jaime E. Settle and Christoper T. Dawkes, also of UC San Diego, and Harvard University’s Nicholas A. Christakis hypothesized that people with the novelty-seeking gene variant would be more interested in learning about their friends’ points of view. As a consequence, people with this genetic predisposition who have a greater-than-average number of friends would be exposed to a wider variety of social norms and lifestyles, which might make them more liberal than average, they deduced.

            A new study has concluded that ideology is not just a social thing; it’s built into the DNA, borne along by a gene called DRD4. Tagged “the liberal gene,” DRD4 is the first specific bit of human DNA that predisposes people to certain political views, the study’s authors claim.

            The human protein is coded by the DRD4 on chromosome 11 located in 11p15.5.

          • ROBO

            My major at Yale was science. I know all about the dopamine receptor and I’m sorry about your loss!

          • Hipshot60

            The only thing I have lost is a little bit of time. You on the other hand have lost your fricken mind!

          • b4k9zp

            robo and his like prove that they don’t have a mind to lose with every post they make.

          • jreb57

            “You on the other hand have lost your fricken mind!”

            No great loss for Robo.

          • mac12sam12

            Considering the economy and your president’s foreign policy, I would say the smart gene has skipped a generation.

          • robo

            No—just missed you—didn’t know you had one!

          • b4k9zp

            Keep proving that you are less intelligent than those you are attacking. You’re doing a great job with every post.

          • ROBO

            That’s my goal Thanks for helping me prove my poin!

          • b4k9zp

            Yeah, you prove that you are not very intelligent with every post you make.

          • helen sabin

            What foreign policy does Obama have other than drawing al one in the sand which he then rubs out and hands off to congress to draw their own line? That red one? Or is it Duck and hide? Run? He doesn’t stand up to Muslim Extremists although most Muslims are extremists…….as he is one.

          • CTH

            Or maybe it was a handout gene.

          • actor44

            Confiscation gene.

          • robo

            Al—did your mommy have you on the fly?

          • actor44

            Now that represents the birth defect ,ridicule ,and name calling.in the face of hard science. Now try to say something intelligent,or should I say SMART.

          • robo

            Terrific!!! Love Ya!

          • b4k9zp

            Really? What a laugh riot. From the idiocies liberals are always devising, it is liberals who lack anything resembling any kind of intelligence. It is entirely missing from their makeup.

          • Hipshot60

            My reply is a few replies south of here. Read it and weep!

          • b4k9zp

            obviously nothing you say has any relationship to the truth.

          • robo

            What asylum were you hatched in? I feel so sorry for that poor hen!!

          • robo

            You must have pooped your brain out your a*s!!!

          • robo

            Hipshot—-get your brain transplant asap!!!!! PLEASE!!!

          • robo

            Probably, the cause eas inbreeding with DNA such as yours. Can I help you out, I’ve got the money and I love helping out moron conservatives. Are you related to George Bush by any chance?

          • actor44

            Ridicule,and name calling dose not work with me. This is not responding to the accepted science ,but an example of the birth defect.

          • robo

            That is you born without a brain. Give me your address and I have my peditetrician call your peditriecian.

          • robo

            I know. Sorry you were bypassed!

          • b4k9zp

            When you call others morons, you prove without any doubt that you are the least intelligent person posting on this forum. You also prove that your opinions are worthless.

          • robo

            Can you change my diaper? I’ve got your shi* all over! It stinks.

        • CTH

          Do not expect a response from douglassummers as obutthead has not yet instructed him how to do that and being short in the intelligence area he can’t do it on his own.

          • danstewart

            Just look at his posting name, dougl “ass” ummers. says a lot.

          • robo

            Duh! Wha happened to you-alls brain? Did yo mammy slip on a banana peel?

        • C. W. Good

          Oorah!

      • Just Old

        With a mind like your’s it’s a wonder how we made it through the dark ages. I feel sorry for you and even sorrier that you probably believe the crap you are putting out. Stupid is not a way to go through life but you try anyway. So good luck you really need it.

      • atchafa

        Doug i will show you the door if you hate it so much in the good ol USA.

        • homegirl

          OMG! There it is the pointless response of the desperate conservative.

          • danstewart

            homegirl, go home to Russia.

          • homegirl

            You are too quick to jump to conclusions. I am a very successful capitalist.

          • danstewart

            You sure do not present yourself that way. But then, contrary to popular belief, most rich people are dems.

          • b4k9zp

            It’s the only response such desperate vile hatred of the USA and its constitution deserves.

      • atchafa

        Why do democrats think blacks are to stupid to get an ID. Democrats are the racist.

        • b4k9zp

          They also think that Hispanics and old people are too dumb to get an ID, which they have to have to conduct business in the USA.

      • canislupus

        You have the right to kill your unborn child as you wish. As for police brutality, that’s punished when it’s proven. As for immigration, a country not in control of its own borders will eventually cease to be a country. Tell us who you know who’s against clean air and water? That’s an old liberal canard.

      • burnt press

        douglass:
        I cannot and never will condone turd tamping. Sorry that you do.

      • mac12sam12

        An ID is not voter suppression. Killing babies was already a supreme court decision, knock yourself out. Gays are already getting married, didn’t get the memo? Police brutality? I suppose it depends on the cop. Has someone denied your right to breath or drink clean water? I’d call the police!

      • Tec Sg Beatty

        Nothing but a bunch of B. S. lies. We’ve never tried to stop anyone from voting, but the Left sure has. Immigration is legal, but the LAWS are not being enforced. I speak only for myself when I REFUSE to endorse perversion. Whatever to consenting adult wish to do in the PRIVACY of their own residence is fine with me. Just quit shoving YOUR BELIEFS down everyone else’s throats. The left are nothing less than Godless, rump humping, babykilling gun grabbing traitors.
        Lefties brought us here. Conservatives are the only ones that can fix the problems.

        • Mark

          LOL,,,,,,;LOL/////

          • Tec Sg Beatty

            Thanks for laughing in agreement. The left has never, I REPEAT, NEVER, been right about anything.

          • Mark

            I was laughing not in agreement, just how narrow minded you are…….

          • Tec Sg Beatty

            Narrow minded? At least I’m capable of independent thought. You lefties don’t seem to have a problem with the Theft of Freedom. It stand by my earlier comments.

          • b4k9zp

            Where is he “narrow-minded”? Nothing was narrow-minded in his statements, just the truth.

          • Mark

            Sounds more like an opinion to me, this is what he said “I speak only for myself when I REFUSE to endorse perversion. Whatever two consenting adults wish to do in the PRIVACY of their own residence is fine with me. Just quit shoving YOUR BELIEFS down everyone else’s throats. The left are nothing less than Godless, rump humping, babykilling gun grabbing traitors.” this is not a Fact…..It maybe the truth to him, but like i said it’s an Opinion……

          • b4k9zp

            He was merely stating the truth, ignorant one.

          • b4k9zp

            Hope you are agreeing with the truthful statements made by Tec Sgt. Beatty.

          • Mark

            Why are you a stalker??????

          • b4k9zp

            Who is stalking anyone? You are the one who makes idiotic and quite stupid comments and prefers only to insult others.

      • papa_r0n

        Now that you have expelled your verbal vomit, try explaining each of your remarks with some substance, facts and data that i can respond to, instead of just making STUPID statements !

      • robo

        You are right! RePuglicans are so so so so SAD!! I pray for you DAILY!!!!

        • b4k9zp

          It is you poor ignorant liberals who are bereft of anything resembling intelligence or common sense.

          • ROBO

            Kiss me, I’m all puckered up!

          • b4k9zp

            Sorry. Don’t swing that way.

      • b4k9zp

        Conservatives don’t say you don’t have the right to vote. THey only say that you must meet the lawful requirements for voting (at least eighteen years of age, a citizen of the United States, and a lawful resident of the precinct and county and state in which you want to vote. And you must be able to prove that you are the person listed on the voter registration certificate. They also think you should not be allowed to vote more than one time in any election cycle. (UNLIKE LIBERALS who want their constituents to be illegal alien residents and vote as many times as possible, but always for liberals).

        As for abortion, no one has the right to murder another individual or take an innocent person’s life without due process of law, for abortion has always been first degree, premeditated murder of a human being.

        As for marriage, any man has the right to marry any woman, and vice versa, as long as both are at least of the age of consent (in most states that is at least 16 years of age). Two persons of the same gender (or sex) cannot marry, because neither has the proper anatomical “equipment” for the “opposite sex” in a marriage.

        Those who emigrate (leave their home country) to immigrate into this country have the right to do so, if they do so in accordance with the immigration laws of the United

        States, so your claim that people cannot immigrate into this country is a blatant lie.

        No one says that you don’t have any right to drink clean water or breathe clean air, but then those are not things that the federal government is responsible for under the constitution. Those powers are delegated to the state governments by the constitution, and the federal government is prohibited from exercising them (Tenth Amendment to the Constitution).

      • jreb57

        “Can’t have the right to vote” Seems like you guys did that. Some of you more than once.
        “Can’t have the right to an abortion” That takes away someone else’s most basic right; the right to life.
        “Can’t have the right to marry” A gay man can marry any woman who will have him because as webster says “marriage is a union between a husband and a wife.”
        “Can’t have the right to live without fear of police brutality” Obey the law. If they still beat you, take them to court.
        “Can’t have the right to immigration” There is no right to immigration.
        “Can’t have the right to breath clean air or clean water” The air is far cleaner now than it was 60 years ago and fish breath water. Or did you mean carbon dioxide which is of course, not a pollutant.

    • actor44

      Much worse than that. They view themselves armed Against You, via the gov. ! You being a pack of ravenous predators attacking the peaceful defenseless peasants ,and stealing everything in sight,and using your weapons to keep all of the plunder for your Hateful,Greedy selves.

    • Al Toth

      Are you that bad a shot you need an assault weapon? Why don’t we just set it up as it was intended to be by our founding fathers? Just as we need proof as to who we are to vote, need proof you are rightful owner of the gun and capable of using it correctly.

      • Dale626

        The founding fathers intended for us to have weapons that would fight off an invading army. You know, like the revoluntionary war?
        Not muzzle loaders against AK47s.
        There is a good reason for high capacity magazines, multiple targets. Whether you are a good shot or not.
        If high cap magazines are so evil, then why do the police use them? Does that make them evil? Because of the equipment they carry?

      • danstewart

        A true “assault weapon” is capable of full auto, IE: one trigger pull, many shots fired. This is illegal without a very expensive & very hard to get permit. The weapons the libturds are calling assault weapons are one trigger pull, one shot fired, just because a rifle is styled like an assault weapon doesn’t make it so.

        • b4k9zp

          And the law that makes such weapons very hard to get is totally and flatly unconstitutional, as well as being highly racist. That’s because the democratic party is still and always has been the party of racism, hatred, intolerance, slavery, bigotry the Ku Klux Klan and “Jim Crow”.

          • danstewart

            Absolutely correct. Libturd dumbocraps have always been anti black, but blacks continue to vote dumbocrap. Makes no sense what-so-ever.

      • Tec Sg Beatty

        Well, Al, an AR-15 is NOT an “assault weapon”, anymore than an M-1 Garand is. Ask anyone that has ever been in a violent, criminal confrontation this question: Would you rather have MORE, or LESS, ammo?
        The Founders “set it up” so We, the People, are, at a minimum, as WELL-ARMED AS AGENTS OF THE STATE.

      • b4k9zp

        Do you even know what an “assault weapon” is? Or are you just blathering mindlessly about them because you are too ignorant to know anything. The founding fathers set up our constitution so that the whole body of the citizenry (the militia) would always be at least as well armed as the police and the military–that they would have weapons that were at least equal to (if not better than) those used by the police or military of the time. That was so that the citizenry which even in colonial times outnumbered the professionals in the “standing army” by over a hundred to one, if not more, would have such superior weaponry that no governmental entity would dare to attempt to destroy the civil rights of the citizens.

        Our second amendment says that government has no power to limit the ownership and or carrying of guns. That’s what the word “infringed” means, and what the phrase “shall not be infringed” means.

    • robo

      You are one stupid, fat ass!!

      • b4k9zp

        and you continue to prove that you are the least intelligent person commenting here.

    • robo

      Are you still in kindergarten? — I tink so–get your mommy to change your diaper. You stink—–really!

      • b4k9zp

        And we continue to see you are still proving that you are the least intelligent person posting here.

    • robo

      Spend your time looking for a brain transplant.

      • b4k9zp

        We see you’re still proving that you are the least intelligent person posting here.

        • ROBO

          I’ll send you a kiss——SSSMMMMAAACCCCKKK! Get it?

          • b4k9zp

            You keep proving that you are the least intelligent person on this forum.

    • helen sabin

      That is the real key to liberals. They want POWER over you – that is their goal and many americans are lemmings and will give up that power to them.

    • babby660

      You, sir, are full of bull. You can shoot whoever the f– you want. I just dislike it when innocents get caught in the crossfire. And, BTW, gun licenses should be at least as strictly controlled as drivers’ licenses. After all, the gun’s purpose is to kill. A car’s purpose is transportation.

      • b4k9zp

        Quite wrong. A gun’s purpose is to guide a projectile to a target chosen by the person holding the gun. It has no other purpose. It is the PERSON who loads the weapon, CHOOSES the target and fires the weapon, not the weapon itself. From the number of cartridges expended, the purpose of nearly all firearms is to punch holes in inanimate targets made of paper, cardboard, or other non-living matter, or to knock down targets made of metals and rubber, wood or plastic. The number of cartridges fired at such targets outnumber the number fired at human beings (or even large or small game animals) by a more than 10,000 to one ratio.

        Licensing a gun is an infringement on the unalienable civil right to possess and carry a firearm without government knowledge or permission. Such a requirement turns that God given right into something that some faceless bureaucrat can deny if you don’t pay him a large enough bribe.

        • babby660

          well, the need to license a car is an affront to my right to get to work; a drivers’ license is much more important to many more people than a license to carry a firearm. I repeat, ins It would be so much simpler as well as provide more breathable air if it were possible to take public transportation to work in more places, but you don’t hear me bitchin’ about THAT!

          • b4k9zp

            You have no “right to drive” that is protected by the constitution. Nor do you have any “right to work” Driving automobiles or riding bicycles or motorcycles is not a fundamental, God given right. The right to possess and carry the arms used by the police and military of the time is a constitutionally protected, fundamental civil right. Guns are used for other purposes than killing, the same as cars and trucks. so you are a liar.

      • Paul Chapman

        Like I, said Libs. I don’t like it there fore you can’t have it. cars kill more people than gun, so what’s your take on that ? Make drivers licenses harder to get ?

        • babby660

          Can’t you read? More folks have cars, therefore more folks have accidents — DUH!

          I said gun licenses should be at least as hard to get as drivers licenses. — meaning testing, plus background checks, plus insurance in case of incidents like that of the unfortunate little girl who killed her instructor when her gun overpowered her nine-year-old arms.

          • Paul Chapman

            Have you gotten a gun license ?

          • babby660

            nope

  • JimRed

    They want those of us most likely to fight back when attacked by their beloved regime to lack the weaponry that would produce success.

    • 5live5

      That’s why private sales are important. They can’t confiscate what they don’t know of!

      • b4k9zp

        Federal government has never had any power to regulate the sale of firearms between individuals who live in the same state. (and before the unconstitutional 1968 gun control act, did not have the power to regulate the interstate sale of firearms between individuals. ( they used the “commerce” clause to restrict the interstate sale of firearms, unconstitutionally.).

  • James Andrews

    They are not “commonly used in mas shootings”. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The fact is, they are so rarely used in crimes period, that they are a non-issue. Only in the fallacy full, fantasy filled minds of the leftists are they considered any real danger.

    • JimRed

      As stated in my comment below. A danger only to the regime, when they attack.

  • Fischenbach

    Can we all agree to stop calling these “assault weapons” in print and other media? Those of us that support the 2nd and all amendments need to educate others, but if we keep using the same terminology as the left, are not perpetuating the lie?

    • Shipwreck

      The problem is that the media tend to call them Assault Rifles (just as did the author of this article)

      • helen sabin

        YEAH – now email the author of this article and state that the term is incorrect.

      • Mark

        The Gun Manufacture calls them Assault Rifles, so really who is lying, maybe they are assault rifles……

        • Clyde

          It becomes an Assault Rifle when it comes time for me to defend my life or America ! Till then it just a rifle that sits in my safe and collects dust !

        • Proud_to_be_American

          According the NFA, which is the official and definitive rule, an “Assault Rifle” is a device which is capable of full automatic fire.

          “Assault Weapon” was developed to confuse the uninformed voter into thinking that any semi-automatic firearm is capable of full auto fire, there by frightening them as the pitiful sheep they truly are and will vote for what ever lies to make them feel safe from those Evil Black Machine-Guns!!!

          • Mark

            So the Gun Manufacture is lying to us in order to sell Guns at a higher cost, Wow……

          • b4k9zp

            No. The gun manufacturer is complying with the idiotic,unconstitutional laws that you and your like have forced on the public.

          • Mark

            So what unconstitutional laws are you talking about????

          • b4k9zp

            ALL of them. Starting with the highly racist National Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1938, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Brady Law, the Hughes Amendment, the Lautenberg Amendment, the “Gun Free Schools” laws, the laws banning possession of firearms in post offices, court houses and other government facilities, and all other laws that in any way restrict or regulate (or “license” ) the unalienable constitutionally protected civil right of possession of and carrying the same weapons that are used by the military and police of the time. Requiring a license to be able to carry a weapon either concealed or openly is unconstitutional. Requiring a citizen to pay a fee or tax to exercise their civil right of possession and carrying of firearms is unconstitutional.

          • Mark

            So what unconstitutional laws are you talking about????

        • b4k9zp

          WRong again. They are not assault rifles, except by the arbitrary definitions given semi-automatic only weapons by an ignorant hoplophobe like yourself. They are semi-automatic weapons that bear some cosmetic features that are similar to some military weapons, the possession of which is guaranteed to individuals by the 2nd amendment to the constitution.

    • gary

      now this might be a stretch and don’t tell any liberal traitors ,but can it be said that any weapon or fire arm can be called an assult weapon ? after all what is it that u use a weapon for?and the lever action repeater was once a military weapon a lot of apaches ,chyanne ,Arapaho and nez perce an d shoshonie can attest to that ,but don’t tell the national socialists in this country what I just wrote or the civil war Michel savage wants to short circuit will come on full bore and fast

      • Fischenbach

        I forgot to mention my “assault” Louisville Slugger, my “assault” claw hammer, my “assault” hammer drill, my “assault” chain saw…You get the idea… 🙂

        • gary

          just a reference to accuracy ,lock and load!!

        • Proud_to_be_American

          According to the FBI’s list hammers have been used to kill more than firearms.

          • b4k9zp

            That’s only true of rifles and shotguns. Sadly, more people are killed with handguns than with either hammers, or rifles or shotguns.

      • Proud_to_be_American

        And again:

        According the NFA, which is the official and definitive rule, an
        “Assault Rifle” is a device which is capable of full automatic fire.

        “Assault Weapon” was developed to confuse the uninformed voter into thinking
        that any semi-automatic firearm is capable of full auto fire, there by
        frightening them as the pitiful sheep they truly are and will vote for
        what ever lies to make them feel safe from those Evil Black
        Machine-Guns!!!

        • gary

          maby it is because I grew up with fire arms and dad introduced them in the right way but it is my openion that I can put a fully charged and cocked fire arm on a table and sit in front of the barrel and barring metal fatigue or act of god nothing will happen unless another human picks the fire arm up ,and any other stance is for cowardly idoits

          • b4k9zp

            Perhaps you should quit attacking the rights of others then.

      • b4k9zp

        I know that the Spenser .56 caliber lever action carbine was used by some U.S. and Confederate cavalry troops during the War Between the States. But the standard issue longarm for the U.S. Army troops in the 1865-1873 period was the Model 1868 Lee Enfield, either in percussion lock or in the cartridge firing version after those were introduced. After 1873, the standard US Army rifle was the Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield, in .45-70 government. Some individual (usually state militia) cavalry units might have had Model 1860 Henrys, or Model 1866 or Model 1873 Winchesters, but these were exceptional.

        • gary

          once agin was not the union in the 1860 to 1865 using a springfield and enfield coming from England used by the confederacy due to the fact that springfield in massachusits was union territory ?

          • b4k9zp

            actually, both sides used the “Lee Enfield” pattern musket/rifle. The Springfield armory in Massachusetts made the Lee-Enfield pattern musket under license from the British designers. Many of those used by the Confederate Army were smuggled through the blockade, but quite a number of them were confiscated from arsenals and forts in Southern states when the Union Army left them when those states seceded from the Union. Harper’s Ferry was in Virginia, until the Western part of Virginia seceded from Virginia and became a Union state (West Virginia) in 1863.

          • gary

            I seem to remember that sumpter was also seded to the confederacy but Lincoln needing an excuse to reconcour the south told the union commander not to surrender the confederate fort to the south forcing the confederates to fire on their own fort and giving Lincoln the excuse he needed ,of course he lied about who the fort belonged too but after 150 years who cares right?
            wish I had a lee enfield musket about now

    • helen sabin

      The term assault weapons has NEVER been defined in a court of law. It is a term that is emotional and is perpetuated by all of us who should NOT be using the term. We should call each gun by its name – i.e. AR-15, M4, etc However, educate others if you can!!

      • Proud_to_be_American

        True!

        According the NFA, which is the official and definitive rule, an
        “Assault Rifle” is a device which is capable of full automatic fire.

        “Assault Weapon” was developed to confuse the uninformed voter into thinking
        that any semi-automatic firearm is capable of full auto fire, there by
        frightening them as the pitiful sheep they truly are and will vote for
        what ever lies to make them feel safe from those Evil Black
        Machine-Guns!!!

      • b4k9zp

        The term “assault weapon” has been defined in numerous military publications. And it has been define in law by the unconstitutional Clinton “Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994 that expired in 2004. That unconstitutional law (properly titled the Public Safety and Firearms Recreational Use Protection Act), a part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, refers to a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic weapons that it defined as “assault weapons” (when they were not true assault weapons, for they could only be fired in semi-automatic mode, one shot for each trigger pull).

        This unconstitutional law designated some 19 specific firearms as “assault weapons”, and then banned groups of them if they met certain criteria:

        Within the context of this law, the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess certain cosmetic features of an assault rifle
        that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as ‘full-auto’, changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons, possession of which is prohibited without the requisite license and payment of the unconstitutional transfer tax for which a receipt must be kept. The mere possession of cosmetic features was enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull.

        In this expired U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms because they possessed a minimum set from the following list of features:

        Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics: “Folding or telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Bayonet mount; Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one; Grenade launcher mount.

        Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: a Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip; a threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor; Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator; Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more; or A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

        Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following features were declared to be “assault weapons”: Folding or telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds; Detachable magazine.

    • TexRancher

      As an old Army brat, I was taught that “ASSAULT” WEAPONS were those capable of full auto fire. That is pull the trigger and it continues to fire until the mag is empty. However, the news spinners have now made any rifle that fires with each pull of the trigger and has a mag. capasity of ten rounds or more is an assault rifle. That makesthe .22 Winchester 190 I bought for my 12 year old son is an assault rifle! What a crock! Anything to disarm Americans. Trouble is, these idiots don’t realize that armed Americans are our last line of defense and that especially means an abusive government. Should Obama and his former democrats (now socialists) get their way, we will have nothing to protect ourselves, family and property from a dictatorial government and a dictator as president. You know, kinds like what Obama views himself as! Before the ObamaBots out there take offense, look at his list of executive orders. Not a one is for the benefit of the country of its citizens. Even worse, they are designed to take away our Rights and protections! They lead right into the UN’s Agenda 21. Read up on that!

      I firmly believe that our forefathers when writing the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights looked into the future and saw Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama!

      We will not give up our 2nd Amendment Rights no matter what Obama does.

      • 5live5

        Hey, I have one of those “assault” 22s!! It’s almost 55 years old and still accurate as all hell!!! Even in the hands of this 63 year old who first shot it at 11 years old. It was my Dads!

      • b4k9zp

        My family had one of those “assault .22s” It was made about 1903, and was called the Model 1903 Winchester. Had a Spencer type tubular magazine (fed through the stock directly into the receiver) and fired a cartridge called the .22 Winchester Automatic rimfire cartridge. (That cartridge had a case that was a little longer than the .22 long, and a little shorter than the .22 long rifle. It fired a 40 grain rebated lead bullet at a muzzle velocity of about 1080 feet per second. Great shooting little carbine (it could be taken down into the receiver group and the buttstock. The magazine held 13 rounds, plus one in the chamber, so it was, according to senator feinstein’s idiotic new definition for “assault weapons”, an assault weapon.

        Even according to the language of the majority opinions of the 1939 U.S. V. Miller, the 2008 D.C. V. Heller and the 2010 McDonald V. Chicago supreme court cases, the Supreme Court recognizes that every individual has the right to possess and carry the same weapons that are used by the military and police of the time, if better ones are not available to them. All refer to the “guns in common use at the time”, and the “Miller case” specifically says that the possession of any weapon that is of use in the maintenance of a well regulated militia is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

  • phoneitin

    I guess my point was those are 322 human lives. Sad.

    • Arizona Patriot

      Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. – In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes. That is one person every 53 minutes. Ban cars!

      • phoneitin

        The only problem with that argument is the primary purpose for cars is transportation, not as weapons.

        • Jarhead

          Not if you are a rich, single BMW convertible owner.

  • alfy

    obama has brainedwahed these idiots as he wants to disarm us .guns don’t kill people it’s the people behind the guns.Chicago and his black people.Thats something obama ,reid,sharpton and jackson won’t even whisper about.

    • Terry

      Obama is incapable of brainwashing anyone, he can barely talk and walk at the same time without a telepromptor. the dangerous ones are Valerie Jarad and old man Soros
      val squeezes one cheek and soros the other and the puppet sqeeks.

      • helen sabin

        Oh but the dizzy blonde, Gwynith Paltro (paltry is her brain) in Hollywood who is horny and thinks Obama is so handsome would disagree.

        • 5live5

          paltro is a pizz poor actress! she can’t even act like a woman with a brain! BTW, to all you spelling freaks out there, I left the lower case “P” on purpose!

          • helen sabin

            AMEN

      • 5live5

        Well now, that depends which “cheeks” you’re talking of!! Oh, sorry both give the same pure BS!!

  • CONCERNED TEXAN

    Anything that can be used to assault someone, is an ‘assault weapon’, i.e. assault fork, assault knife, assault automobile, etc. Are the libs going to ban these objects?!…

    • helen sabin

      They would try if they could. Look at them trying to banish the terms boys and girls – and swap them for purple penguins.

      • Peter Osborne

        Helen they want to abolish CO2 , and that would kill everyone! Rational thought is not a liberal long suit.

        • helen sabin

          They don’t think period!! MORONS all of them including Paltrow!!

          • Peter Osborne

            Really? 😉

          • helen sabin

            YES really!

          • b4k9zp

            Yes, really.

        • 5live5

          If you’re a conservative, they want to abolish your right to life!!!

          • Peter Osborne

            TOO late. I ‘ve been born for decades!

          • 5live5

            for conservatives, the Obots will allow ANY term abortion, even at 60 years past birth.

          • DDofAL

            WHERE IS THE RATIONAL THOUGHT?

          • 5live5

            Let’s see, I’ll try again. The liberals, who HATE conservatives would allow ULTRA late term abortions even up to 60 years past birth. Got it?

          • DDofAL

            SO YOU ARE CONSERVATIVE? IF SO CONGRATES—

            Subject: Re: New comment posted on Why Can’ t Liberals Just Accept these Facts about Assault Rifles?

          • b4k9zp

            but according to liberals, if you disagree with them, you don’t have the right to live, even if you’ve already been born.

          • DDofAL

            WTF? ITS THE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE RIGHT TO LIFERS—AND THE PROGRESSIVES THAT TOSS BABIES AS IF THEY ARE TRASH.

          • 5live5

            THE LIBERALS WANT IT!! Understand now?

          • DDofAL

            READING BETWEEN THE LINES SEEMS AS IF YOU AREN’T CLEAR AS TO WHAT YOU POST–SEEMED LIKE YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS THE DEMS THAT WERE PRO LIFE–WHICH IS IT?
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on Why Can’ t Liberals Just Accept these Facts about Assault Rifles?

          • 5live5

            As to the subject of my post, look at the post right above mine. I would NEVER say liberals are pro life.

          • DDofAL

            THIS IS A LIMITATION OF REPLYING TO A POST WITHOUT READING ALL THE POSTS–BUT SEEMS AS IF YOU STILL DODGE IF YOU’RE NOT CLEAR AS TO YOUR POSITION—WOULD YOU BE INSULTED TO BE CALLED CONSERVATIVE?
            Subject: Re: New comment posted on Why Can’ t Liberals Just Accept these Facts about Assault Rifles?

          • b4k9zp

            Yes, liberals do want to kill anyone with whom they disagree. That’s why they hate the possession of firearms by anyone other than themselves.

          • 5live5

            Of course. look at all the pols that are for gun bans yet their entourage all carry concealed!

      • Kelly Guthridge

        Or perhaps; with this new so called educational program from the Obummer’s Administration “Common Core”

        They should all be refereed to as “Brainwashed Meat Sacs”

        • 5live5

          I thought that was “Common Crap”??

          • Kelly Guthridge

            Yeah, same difference : – )

          • helen sabin

            YES IT IS

          • 5live5

            Hell, no they learn to read by memorization. The phonics system, that taught scientists, doctors, pilots, navigators, people from all walks of life is no longer good enough for them, yet our world standing in education has dropped drastically! Somebody needs to teach our schools ” if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”!!!

          • helen sabin

            Some children are taught phonics but many are taught to learn to read by rhyming – can, dan, fan, etc. Our educational level is abysmal when compared with the rest of the world. We have had too many new curricula that are not vetted and are put out just to make money – i.e. common core, no child left behind, international baccalaureate, the confucious curriculum, etc etc .

          • 5live5

            Like I said, If it isn’t broken, DON’T FIX IT!!!

          • b4k9zp

            My parents taught me to read. IIRC,my favorite book at the age of about 1-1/2 was “Brave Cowboy Bill”. I was reading third grade books before entering first grade, and by sixth grade was reading 12th grade high school textbooks. Never had a “reading class” until my senior year in high school, and it slowed me down.

          • helen sabin

            Good for your parents. Parents should read to their kids and then have them “read” the book back – teaches them many skills in speaking, thinking, organizing, etc The question that goes hand in hand with phonics is comprehension. You may be able to read a 12th grade high school text book, but did you understand what you were reading? If so…you were blessed with a nice high IQ – or a desire to learn or both. What is your GPA? And why did you need a reading class in your senior year if you were dong so well? Another stupid rule brought forth by stupid school districts and administrators who think they know what is good for you?

          • b4k9zp

            Mom was a high school (and later College) English teacher, and dad was a corporate lawyer. Both my mom’s parents were teachers, and of my three siblings and four cousins, five were also teachers.

            Yes, I was taught to read AND UNDERSTAND what I was reading. Don’t know that I ever actually took an IQ test in school, but on the standardized tests I did take I was always in the 99th percentile on both speed and comprehension.

            When I took the reading class in high school it was for two reasons. First was that I wanted something to pass the time; and second, I hoped it would help me to read faster. It didn’t. A different kind of reading class probably would have helped me to read faster, but the maximum WPM on the equipment our school district had was only about 1200 WPM, and when I started the course (six week long) I was already reading faster than the maximum it could handle.

          • helen sabin

            GIVE YOUR PARENTS A HUG FROM ME! bless them for doing what they did for you. I hope you appreciate and remember their efforts!! Sounds like what we need more of in today’s world!

        • Mark

          Yes just like Republicans,,,,,Most candidates are running on a major-party line — Republican or Democrat — in addition to Stop Common Core. Many with this ballot line seem to be spouting the same talking points: Common Core is reducing our kids to test scores. Schools are teaching to the test. Common Core has multiplied the hours students spend test-taking.

          It’s wonderfully rabble-rousing rhetoric, except that it’s completely false.

          The number of tests mandated by state and federal officials for graduation has remained the same as before the adoption of the Common Core standards in the 2011-12 school year. Exactly the same: 19. That’s math and English Language Arts at the end of third to eighth grades, and one math and English exam in high school; three science exams; U.S. history and global history.

          • olf

            Mark, who or what are you.?

          • Kelly Guthridge

            Note the close relation between the two:

            Mark, Marxist
            Mark, Marxist
            Mark, Marxist

            I think it pretty much speaks for itself… that along with his gibberish speech

            I grew up going to school in the 60’s – 70’s and there was nothing wrong with the Educational system then… so why break something that works? Oh yeah, the Socialist Commie Pigs want to Dumb down America and Brainwash them all… what better way to try and do it than in the school system

          • Mark

            That’s funny i grow up in the 60’s and 70’s and i learn to look up Facts, the only one brainwash is the one that follow a party with out checking facts, like you do……

          • Kelly Guthridge

            No, what is really funny is that you are making an assumption and assumptions are like A-holes… everyone’s got one and more often than not they’re both full of $hit… So I would suggest that you hold your nose right now!

            I never in my Life have voted for a single Party… I vote for Individuals; who’s ideas, beliefs, voting practices & politics fall most closest within my own… I know for such simple minded individuals such as yourself that is just to hard to comprehend as it doesn’t come with a coloring book nor any connect the dots for you to play with.

            FACT IS: I research ever topic, item and person coming up for vote on any given election… and I vote in every election! That is the Responsibility of American… do their own Research and not just rely upon hearsay, especially not the Propaganda Machine a.k.a. Media

          • Peter Osborne

            Yes, we did end up spending considerable time in libraries looking for reference books. Often, in the search, other books not associated with the search subject were found were that interested me, and check them out too. We learned the Dewey decimal system and understood it. I can still remember the smell of all that paper in the no smoking local Town Library. Every librarian there and in the school knew my name and checkouts, and suggested titles to me…..

          • Just Old

            Too bad you didn’t learn to understand them.

          • b4k9zp

            When have you presented any facts. No one reading your posts has seen a single verifiable fact in your screeds.

          • b4k9zp

            Nothing you state about Republicans has any foundation in anything resembling truth.

            BTW, when I was in grade school, we took tests on every subject every day. Spelling tests, writing tests, and so on. BTW, I missed being an honor graduate in high school by about 0.013 grade points (had to have a 4.000 grade point average to be an honor graduate. (A = 4 points, B = 3 points, C = 2 points, D = 1 point, and F = 0 points) and I took physics, first year college calculus, and other similar courses in my senior year.

          • Mark

            Let me see you answered with your grade point avg, and you call that Facts, Wow no Wonder The TeaParty are such Losers…………..

          • b4k9zp

            Obviously you don’t understand what facts are. Facts = truth. Non-facts (what you habitually spout) = lies. and vice versa.

        • helen sabin

          COMMIE CORE is more like it. And guess who makes money from it – one of Obama’s biggest donors – Bill GATES!! BMS – love it!!

          • Kelly Guthridge

            You mean; Bill HATES of the Bill & Malinda HATES America Foundation!!!

            As for Obama and his Big Supporters… if you look really close when Obama talks and or smiles you can see the fingers of his MAIN Supporter and his Puppet Master George Soros… as he has his arm so far up the back side of Obama

          • helen sabin

            The only blessing I can see if that these two don’t have chldren as far as I know – they don’t breed to perpetuate their stupidity!

          • Proud_to_be_American

            Billy boy owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto, you know the creators of Agent Orange, Round-up (which been found in breast milk) & of course GMOs…

        • tinkerunique

          Common Core is an indoctrination program to dumb-down our children. 4th grade sex-ed and High School “how-to”. Few states have banned it.

  • CONCERNED TEXAN

    Quit using the term ‘clips’. Very few rifles use ‘clips’, and I know of no handguns that use ‘clips’. They use ‘magazines’. The term ‘clips’ is misused by the media, the film industry, and even some law enforcement get it wrong. High capacity ‘magazines’ is usually one that will hold more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition. Just my personal opinion. Please get it right, okay?…

    • Terry

      I like the double stack 15 round capacity .45 self defence type that look like flying ashtrays.

      • gary

        my rugar p98 can olny hold 8 rounds what pistol are you speaking of?

        • b4k9zp

          Glock 21 (.45 ACP), Glock 20 (10 mm auto), Glock 22 (.40 S&W); Para Ordnance P12/45, P14/45 in .45 ACP; Springfield XD in .45 ACP. all hold from 12 to 15 rounds in .45 acp.

    • Shipwreck

      We grew up calling them clips, and we all knew to what we were referring. So I don’t really care. I say Mag or Magazine, just for the sake of accuracy, but I never heard Dad refer to what he shoved in the handle of his 1911, as anything but a “clp”, and when he gave me that liberated Walther P-38 he gave me a “spare clip” to go with it. Hell, he was just a Bastrop County farm boy. What Did he know? Well he knew enough to lug a BAR across France, Belgium and Germany, and to come out alive as a Sgt.. I figure he could call ’em any damn thing he pleased.

      • CONCERNED TEXAN

        I am a veteran, as was my dad and grandfather. WWII rifles often had ‘clips’. Thank your dad for his service to this country, and he can call them whatever he likes, it’s okay with me. Just expressing my opinion as a law enforcement officer, and retired military veteran… Wish I had a M1911A1 in my collection… My ancestors have been in Texas since the early 1800’s, and originally settled in the Lavaca County area. Check out the Hand Book of Texas web site. Interesting…

        • gary

          actually an m-1 garrand was loaded with a clip (to be accurate) the magazine was internal and fixed ,the last round released the clip and it ejected with a pronounced ping,the Japanese learned to listen for the ping and advanced when it was heard until our soldiers learned to keep an extra clip in hand and randomly tossed it to coaxe the Japanese soldiers out of cover

          • CONCERNED TEXAN

            The M-1 was a great rifle. Thanks for the update. At one time, the NRA offered this rifle for around $125, but they were hard to get. A friend of mine bought one in Arizona for $85, and also got green stamps to go with it. That was back when there was a gun store on every corner, and there used to be great gun shows where you could buy any thing you wanted. Those were the days…

          • gary

            my father used to work in a pawn shop and the owner would let him try out rifles in the store as long as he cleaned them before putting it on the shelf this was middle 60’s he came home with a 3006 ant tried to fire it ,as did my older brother it knocked the poo outa both of them ,and dad had trained with a m1 garrand he was army in 1945,and was on a train in north Dakota on the way to the south pacific when the armistis was sgined but at 6’6″ and Robert was 6’3″ and 250 pounds and to see them fire that rifel and it nearly detached their retnas was funny dad took that rifel back and never touched it agin the owner of the pawm shop sold it dad would have nothing to do with it

          • b4k9zp

            That rifle must have had a severely corroded bore, if its recoil was as bad as you say. lucky that the weapon didn’t blow up on them

            I’ve fired at least five different M-1 Garand rifles and never had any problem with them, The recoil is actually less with the M-1 Garand than it was with my Winchester Model 70, Ruger Model 77, or Remington, Model 700 bolt actions, or the one M1903 Springfield/M1917 Enfield in .30-06 that I’ve fired. That’s because the fully-loaded M-1 weighs nearly eleven pounds while the bolt actions were all in the 8 to 9 pound range with 3x-9x scopes and five rounds in the rifle. When I was doing the most shooting with those rifles, I was six foot even and about 225-230.

            BTW, the agreements that ended World War Two in both European and Pacific theaters were not armistices, but full blown, unconditional surrenders by the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific.

    • Just Old

      I know what you mean. I have 5 round stripper clips and 8 round clips but hey I’m exmillitary so what do I know.

    • b4k9zp

      Actually, most of the “magazines” with which most semi-automatic rifles are equipped (except in backward places like New York and Calilfornia, Massachusetts and Connecticut) have “standard capacity magazines” that hold 20 or more cartridges. The 10 round magazines are “limited capacity” magazines.

      The M-1 Garand used what was called an 8 round “en bloc” clip, which held eight .30-06 Springfield cartridges together in a double stack by the base, though the clip extended about half the length of the cartridges.

      The M-16 magazines were loaded with “stripper clips” each of which held ten .223 caliber cartridges by their bases and could be inserted into the lip of the magazine and “stripped” into the 20-round, 30-round or 40-round magazine, ten at a time. The M14 20 round magazines had a similar arrangement.

      And the Johnson M1941 rifle, and the Springfield M1903 bolt action rifles could be loaded quickly using the standard five round stripper clips for loading.

      The British SMLE (Short Muzzle Lee-Enfield) rifles had a ten round capacity magazine in the stock of the weapon which could quickly be reloaded using a ten round stripper clip.

  • Buddy Honeycutt

    IF AMERICA EVER LETS THE DEMOCRATS TAKE OUR GUNS THEN AMERICA IS DOOMED..
    JUST LIKE OBAMA-HITLER WONTS..ADOLF TOOK GUNS IN THE NAME OF SAFETY AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENED THERE..NOT HERE DAMNIT…..

    • Mark

      I find it funny the only one’s about taking away gun’s are Republicans, why is that????

      • Just Old

        I know you’re pulling our leg, no one could possibly be that stupid or I could be wrong.

        • b4k9zp

          He’s not. He proves his lack of acumen every time he posts.

      • b4k9zp

        Could be because liberals like yourself are too ignorant, or have their heads buried too deep in something that is brown and smelly to recognize the truth of what is going on, and has been going on since 1934. Democrats have been advocating destruction of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution since at least 1934, and have been working on it a piece at a time, with approval of the 1934 and 1938 National Firearms Acts, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the creation of the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Bureau in 1972; the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986 (which prohibited the manufacture sale or use of bullets that would penetrate a protective vest as defined in the law); the infamous and unconstitutional Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (that banned the domestic manufacture of fully-automatic weapons for the civilian market); the “Crime Control Act of 1990” that created “gun free school zones” and prohibited conversion of a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatic weapon; the equally unconstitutional Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 “VIolent Crime Control And Law Enforcement Act”, popularly known as the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban” of 1994. After the alleged Sandy Hook incident in 2012, obama called for re-enactment of the failed 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban” in a strengthened version that would have banned more than half the semi-automatic weapons on the market.

  • hangman57

    The problem with people who write these articles ,don’t know the difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a full automatic Assault rifle . They look the same but they are not the same . The ones sold at gun stores are semi- automatic weapons , they fire one round at a time . The military are 3 round burst or full automatic weapon ,this is a assault weapon . They look the same but ,there is a big difference between them . Only stupid uneducated people try to ban weapons in America . Know your History ,before you ban weapons . I would guess most College students can even pass a American History test . I have watched them on Walter’s World .

  • USMC 64-68

    Leftist don’t accept the truth about “assault rifles” simply because they don’t care about the truth. They want the image and the emotion that they can manipulate by creating a rifle with an “evil and malevolent” purpose.

    Democrats are Marxists, and Marxists always operate on the basis of propaganda – deceit is the name of their game.

  • Terry

    The left does not like or trust the military, assualt rifles are military so it’s easy to see them as bad….. Bull shit! The left hates guns period, the left knows that right now there is a gun behind every blade of grass and their trying to mow the grass.

  • steven

    One has to remember these are the same jerk offs put Oboa in office.

  • Proud US vet/American

    This is all a giant LIBERAL smoke screen for their assault on gun rights and their ultimate goal of gun confiscation, plain and simple! They know the difference, but by keeping the term “Assault weapon” in the minds of the leftist’s anti-gun public minds, they keep their Socialist assault on American gun owners front and center in the media. Gun owners, the NRA and all true Patriotic American’s need to stay vigilant and keep the pressure on these anti-American Socialist’s or we will lose our rights for sure.
    MOLON LABE

  • USPatriotOne

    For starts the term “Assault Rifle” came out of Hollywood in the movies in the late 1980’s. There is NO such term in the Handgun/Rifle Dictionary. The has nothing to do with the Guns People, it about disarming “We the People” so the coming Commie/Muslim/NWO Martial Law will be much easier to implement, plain and simple..!!! Tyranny has many faces, but one result…Enslavement and Death!

  • Rob Handy

    The thing that disturbs me most about this article is the continued mistake of linking the Colt AR-15 semiautomatic rifle with the misnomer of “assault rifle”, which it most certainly is not! Despite the cosmetic similarities between the sporting AR-15 and it’s military assault counterparts, the M-4 and M-16 rifles, the AR-15 is capable of semi-automatic fire only. The military’s assault versions of this rifle are capable of either semi-automatic or full-automatic fire, selectable via a lever on the side of the receiver. These military rifles are not generally and/or simply available to the public, the fact being that, to purchase one of these requires an in-depth background check and an extremely expensive license that costs thousands of dollars. Every time we mistakenly allow an AR-15 to be described as an assault rifle, we place our own credibility in jeopardy, folks. Please remember the stratagem that Adolph Hitler urged Josef Goebbels to put in use, that telling a big enough lie often enough makes it become truth. No lie can ever become truth, of course, but Hitler realized that, through the use of that strategy, a constant lie could become perceived as “another truth”. Such, unfortunately, is human nature. Pardon the pun, but let’s please not “shoot ourselves in the foot”, friends.

  • helen sabin

    If liberal teachers,idiot administrators, and psychologists or “diversity counselors, would get rid of terms boys and girls and swap them for “purple penguins” – then do you really think they would learn ANYThing about guns? Guns are evil, nasty, harmful, and scary!! They are a bunch of cowardly morons.

  • America Believer

    Because the ideological track of thinking embedded in their skull is so easily adhered too, and to rub two brain cells together requires such a vast amount of additional effort on their part for any different way for them to see the big picture and realize, A LIFE, HAS an actual VALUE worth defending, there own perception of themselves is that of “worthlessness” and so conversely all of the rest of us must be even MORE worthless than they see themselves. And so we see on display here the results of generational re-education , people led to believe that the lowering bar of intelligence must be tolerated in order to create the illusion that their “stupidity” is the standard for intelligent thought and the censorship of anyone pointing out the truth using words like “stupidity” shall be condemned as “bigots” thus shifting the focus back on the person with the spotlight, telling them in no uncertain terms … “TURN OFF THAT LIGHT!” MOVE ALONG , NOTHING TO SEE HERE! Satisfying their greed for power over the discussion.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    The
    term “assault rifle” was given the world by Germany’s sturmgewehr 44
    which translates basically as – “assault
    rifle”. It fired an intermediate cartridge (7.92×33), and had a fully
    automatic capability. The later AK-47
    and M-16 were refinements on the concept, and had the same capabilities. The
    AR’s and AKs sold on the American market do NOT have a fully automatic
    capability, and thus fail the “assault rifle” meme. They simply look like their fully
    automatic cousins, and provide the statists with material to frighten the
    ignorant.

  • Reelman1946

    This is the most valuable post or near it of all I have made for years…read it 2x..accept it….let it explain the insanity the past 6 years plus………..DEMOCRATS: FANTASY-BASED FOOLS?!

    When you think of numerous crazy gov-meant, failed re-funded gov-meant programs and such, which Party or politicians mostly come to mind? What is PC-ism but a denial of reality? Illegals are undocumented, blood cult terrorism
    is workplace violence, MMG Warming fanatics amid record cold…the list grows.

    It is apparent, especially since the reign of the apostle of socialism Obama,
    that the democrat Party is fantasy-based.
    Every election is a fuzzy feel good fantasy list that few can resist emotionally
    but most would know, if researched, is seriously flawed.

    This control freak democrat monster gov-meant elected to create a fantasy “fairness” (as defined by top democrats) socialist paradise quickly morphs into a never-ending list of very expensive bans and mandates. Real choices are few in their fantasy paradise.
    Gov-meant hiring soars along with debt. Why is that?

    Leaps of freedom and prosperity are never at the top of the democrat reality list, its always the constant next “struggle” to overcome this or that demon first.
    Always the demon that prevents more freedom, more prosperity and a smaller
    more efficient more open gov-meant from appearing this year. Its always fantasy promises of the “utopian fairness soon” which never arrives. Why is that?
    The democrat policies get a “results pass”!
    Question them and be sternly told of “demon interference”, even years later.

    Voters are relentlessly pelted by democrats with race, class, gender, fear and guilt trips.
    Why is there nothing else in their approach?
    Oh, there is…bold lies, smears, demons and empty promises are required for the infinite fantasy.
    Fantasy can be like that…as long as it gets you power over people, who cares how?

    (Welcome to the movie “Groundhog Day” where decade after decade some democrat repeats the same fuzzy litany of fantasy baloney, many fall for it and elects them again…to fail)
    (theconservativecrawfish.wordpress)
    The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see – Ayn Rand

  • 10-Nov-1775

    Liberals “assault speech” should be outlawed.

  • Shipwreck

    A well-written article, except for the fatal-flaw that was evident, beginning with the headline.

    Actually, an Assault Rifle is a very specifically definined weapon and has been since the Second World War. AND an Assault Rifle is NOT what is being sold to mos tAmerican gun buyers.We buy (so-ccalled) assault weapons which only LOOK like Assault Rifles. IT is “Assault Weapon” that is the made-up term from the 1994 Gun Ban Law.

    An Assault Rifle Is designed to be shorter and lighter in weight than what were formerly the standard infantry foot-soldier’s battle implement. By definition they are capable of (FULLY-automatic fire, and typically can fire selectively in single- shot or in some casses in “burst”mode (typically 3-rounds per trigger pull). The also use an intermediate cartridge, being more powerful than the pistol cartridges fires in sub-machine guns, but less-powerful than the larger rifle cartridges used in US weapons (e.g. .30-06 and 7.62x55mm). The cartridges are lighter and smaller,, thereby enable the soldier to remain in action longer for a given ammo weight penalty. They empoly detachable box magazines, typically holding from 20 to 30 round. Other features may vary and include bipods, flash-hiders, bayonet lugs, grenad launchers, etc.

    What American typically buy is a semi-auto ONLY civilian version that LOOKS like it military counterpart. THAT is the single largest difference, although among my associates I have not seen a single bayonet or grenade launcher, but them I don’t know many people, and they aren’t too war-like.

  • grassfox

    What we actually need is to be armed with real assault rifles like the ones that were given to the Mexican cartels, to the islamic brotherhood and to the Syrian rebels inorder to protect America from the ISIS invaders that are already here planning an attack.

  • Paul Willard

    No such thing as an “assault rifle”…ALL AR/AK platforms are shoulder fired, gas operated, Magazine fed, self loading rifles…Period! It is Not about controlling weapons….it IS about controlling the Populace…AND they KNOW it….Molon Labe, LibTard scum!

  • Carl

    We just have to keep having a strong voice and put our money to work for us, heck I can make my Glock 21 look like an assault rifle. CNN is the worst anti guns anti constitution propaganda machine I have ever seen.

  • Arizona Patriot

    Why can’t anyone ever get it right? If it is not selective fire or automatic fire, it can not be classified as an assault rifle, period! People who write that are not educated only help keep the sheep stupid.

  • banjojack

    I believe your figure of 12,000 firearms murders is a bit high. It is closer to 9000, and well over half the victims are blacks, (13% of the population ), and more than half the perps are black males between the ages of 15 and 45, (about 7% of the population). Black males outside of this age demographic, and black females of all ages, are far more likely to be victims.

  • Bob Honiker

    You’re missing the point. All the gun laws they propose are seen as incremental steps toward a total ban and confiscation. They try to split things off, take something today and if they get it they will be back tomorrow wanting to ban another kind of gun. All their talk about respecting the 2nd amendment is hogwash, only fools will ever believe a single word they say.

    • avlisk

      Yes. If we “reasonably” give up a little here, a little there, a little at a time, then before long, we’ll have nothing more to give up . . .it will all have been taken. Therefore, I have to agree with those, like the NRA, who say the 2nd Amendment is NOT negotiable. Not one bit. Not at all. Any negotiation inevitably will lead to total confiscation and tyranny. I know I want to be ready to fight with force later if fighting with my words should fail me now.

  • Because these “liberals” never served our country for one second of their lives. There are 21.8 million veterans in America, both men and women, who have been trained to respect a firearm. Leave our 2nd amendment rights alone. Period.

  • Jerry Hughes

    It really makes no difference to the liberal dem bloodsuckers, aka American Jihadists.
    Why Jihadists?
    They will countenance/accept any lie, cheat or theft, so long as it advances their ideology.The lineral; parasite are aware that, they can’t take the country socialist, that, they can’t control your life, so long, as you are armed.
    That will not stop, it is a mental defiecy in the liberal dem bloodsuckers.
    They consider themselves immortal and that being shot in the head is simply not doable..
    Reason and vortes are not an acceptable way, to deal with the liberal scum.
    Contact your elected legislators,. urge them to set up a national referendum on partitioning the USA, it’;s likely that it is the only way to prevent civil war.

  • AmericanIcon

    Actually, you got your ‘facts’ wrong: There is an ‘assault rifle’ – it’s a selective fire (full auto or single shot) medium caliber rifle or carbine designed for military purposes. An ‘assault weapon’, on the other hand, is an invention of the ‘politically correct’ that says nothing and means less. ‘Assault’ is an action, not a tangible item. If I hit you, I have ‘assaulted’ you. If I pick up a brick and hit you with it, I have ‘assaulted’ you with a ‘weapon’, making that brick, by definition, a ‘weapon of assault’ – or an ‘assault weapon’. We gotta DO SOMETHING about those deadly ‘assault bricks’…’for the children!’

  • pictureman

    first if all all of you repeat after me there is no such thing as an Assault rifle! the term Assault is a verb and inanimate objects Rifles. pistols, cannons, sling shots, cross bows, long bows, skillets, and kitchen knifes, are all inanimate objects not capable if acting with out a human! but all can be used to kill some one!

  • Phil Barrett

    Fear does not understand or care about the truth.

  • ron44

    Truth is vacant in the liberal brain. They get caught lying again and again but none of the media points that out with out a struggle over doing it.

  • Lawrence Ierardi

    Please concentrate your information toward those who are either uninformed or misinformed about semiautomatic firearms. I include candidates for office in this group because too often they obtain their information from the gun control crowd. Information presented in this article is plain and simple and should be used because it is not technical or strident. It is hard to refute. The data about deaths by firearms flies directly in the face of the exaggerated numbers used so often in the media and by gun control groups. Name calling and insults do little good. Those words put the person you are trying to convince on the defensive from the outset which adds a hurdle to your task.

  • USCBIKER

    Yes, the Left are imbecile zealots but let’s be honest here. An AR-15 is VERY different from an ordinary target or hunting rifle. It’s purely an anti-personnel weapon designed to be easily maintained and operated. Its 30-round mags are intended for maximum killing power, exactly what’s needed when the whole damn nation becomes Ferguson! That’s why we dig ’em and they hate ’em, LOL. I love to see the pinkos gag on things we like that stick in their craw. When the SHTF, most of us will survive and the vermin will overrun them.

    • b4k9zp

      No it is not any different from an ordinary target or hunting rifle, for AR-15 and their clones are used as hunting and target rifles far more often than they are used by criminals who shoot others indiscriminately. By the number of rounds fired at different targets, the number of rounds fired at human beings from AK-47 semi auto and AR platform semi-ato rifles is less than one tenth of one thousandth of one percent of the number of rounds fired at inanimate targets and small and large game animals. It is not “purely an anti-personnel weapon”, as you so hysterically claim.

  • DDofAL

    SEEMS AS IF A SITE LIKE THIS WOULD GO TO THE TROUBLE OF COMPILING THE FACTS—WHICH ARE THAT RIFLES SUCH AS THE ONES DESCRIBED HERE ARE NOT USED IN MOST MASS SHOOTINGS. THE LIBS ALSO THINK THAT YOU SHOULD BE MUCH BETTER WITH A GUN THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT THIS IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE IDEA YOU NEED FEWER ROUNDS TO COMPLETE THE JOB. BUT —BUT IF YOU READ THE POST THAT BITCH AT THE COPS MANY TIMES YOU FIND THAT THE COPS HIT FAR MORE THAN THE PERPS DO–THAT IS THEY HIT MORE INNOCENTS BY NOT BEING CAREFUL WITH SHOT SELECTION. AS AND EXAMPLE OF SHOOTINGS WITHOUT THE “ASSAULT” RIFLE LOOK TO THE NAVY YARD SHOOTING AND THE FT HOOD SHOOTING—MANY DEAD WITH THE PRIMARY WEAPON USED A HAND GUN—WANT ANOTHER JUST LOOK THE TX COLLEGE SHOOTING OF ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO–BOLT ACTION RIFLE—OR THE WORST CASE OF A SCHOOL KILLING A BOMB IN 1927 I THINK—

  • MIKE6080

    Govener Quinn in Illinois is running an ad about the evil assualt weapons that he says the republican candidate supports He says these assualt rifles with extended (Clips – not magazines ) can spray 250 rounds per minute in a room – is this what you want . Another liberal unknowing idiot .

  • Mike Homes

    If someone is attacking me, I will duck and cover and then throw rocks as I run away. I’m a people person.

    • Just Old

      You’re dead meat walking.

    • b4k9zp

      when the guy attacking you is bigger, faster or stronger than you (usually all three) unless you are armed, you are dead meat.

  • vincent marquette

    They are not assault rifles, they are defense rifles.

  • 5live5

    What they fail to take into consideration even more is the FACT that these “mass murders” all occur in “GUN FREE” zones!!!

    • b4k9zp

      right. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

  • I’ve always found it risible that our present-day “Liberal” fascists are using (with stunningly stupid inaccuracy) a term which had been cobbled up originally to coddle another socialist schmuck: Adolf Hitler.

    The expression “assault rifle” is an English translation of the German word “Sturmgewehr,” which had been devised to make it possible for that attack-obsessed nutcase to accept a new longarm which had previously been proposed as a variety of submachine gun (“Maschinenpistole”) in 1942.

    Y’see, a machine pistol – like the Thompson subgun much beloved of bootleggers, F.B.I. hit squads, and other gangsters – is a short-range weapon using low-powered handgun cartridges like the .45 ACP and 9mm Parabellum rounds. Freaky as this might seem to “Liberals” and other hoplophobes, its militarily considered a sort of defensive firearm. When you’re on the attack, you want to “reach out and touch someone” at range, and for that purpose you issue what are commonly known as battle rifles. The old .303 caliber British SMLE, the U.S. M-1 Garand chambering the .30-06 round, the British L1A1 and the other weapons designed to fire the 7.62mm NATO rifle cartridge.

    But standard rifle rounds are big, heavy, and they’ve got a lot of “kick” (felt recoil) if they’re fired from a relatively lightweight weapon. They’re great for use in machine guns, but they’re hard for footsoldiers to lug around, and the recoil is a problem for anybody not trained and practiced in the combat specialties. For more than a century now, most of the people in the armed forces are not specialists in infantry-type combat, and yet they’ve still got to be trained and equipped with a longarm that works effectively on the battlefield.

    The solution developed in 1942 was a “cut-down” version (Kurz) of the German army’s standard 7.92mm rifle cartridge. Less “kick” than a rifle round, and therefore less range, but a helluva lot better range and stopping power than either the Europeans’ wussy little 9mm Parabellum or even Mr. Browning’s big, ugly .45 ACP. Add to that the advantage of big, spring-fed quick-change box magazines and – above all else – selective fire capability (meaning you could switch from single-shot semiautomatic fire to full-automatic “spray-and-pray”), and you have what’s genuinely known as an assault rifle.

    No selective fire capability, though, and it’s not an assault rifle.

    It’s just a semiautomatic longarm that chambers a weak rifle cartridge. Cut-down. Lower muzzle energy. Shorter range.

    Sure, you can make it take big magazines. Twenty rounds? Thirty rounds? Sure. Heck, you can make a magazine that’ll feed fifty or a hundred rounds, but it’ll be a goddam anvil. And the spring feeding system inside each magazine becomes expensive and unreliable. Better to stick with twenty-round mags and not go nuts with full-auto.

    So without full-automatic capability, the AR-15 design isn’t really an “assault rifle” at all. It’s a semiautomatic carbine with some very nice ergonomic features that make it look kinda ugly.

    Which seems to scare the crap out of “Liberals” and other mentally and morally crippled damnfools.

    Go figure.

  • Vernon Cunningham

    I have already produced a Ghost gun. relatively easy, and the instructions are easy to follow. spare parts kits are available in many gun stores, or you can get an armorer to help you . I am 73. if I can build one with a simple drill press and a few bits, then anyone can. And it shoots like any other rigfle, one shot at a time. I have a 20 round mag. It takes 1 1/2 seconds to reload another mag. I don’t load mags with more than 10 rounds, and usually 5. I shoot for sport. An assult rifle like they portray would waste ammo, and I can’t afford to waste bullets. These liberals need to go to a range with someone and actually see what these guns do, and how to handle them safely/.

  • EL Hibarito

    I notice that a lot of people on this thread seem to zero in on the terminology assault weapon but what is most important is that I hope every single one of you all put your money where your mouth is NOW Or the second amendment will cease to exist, PERIOD.

  • Patriot47

    The answer to the question posed in the headline is —- because it does not suit their agenda.

  • Clyde

    What most anti gun nuts don’t think about is what happens when they ( Our government ) do disarm this country ! You can go to YouTube and take a look at other country’s that had been disarmed by their governments ! Watch Gun Control History ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVs9psi_G5k ) And give me a good reason why I should give up my gun ! I’m not out there shooting up the town ! But I have it if some nut comes to hurt me our my family ! I got when this government becomes so corrupt that we have to fight to take America back ! I refuse to be disarmed and lined up on the side of a trench and shot down without a fight ! So think twice before you go and vote against our 2nd amendment ! It’s your god given right people !

    • olf

      Those ISIS killers that are making people dig their own graves and lining them up along the side shooting them in the back of the head as they fall into the ditch. Those are obamas friends, that’s why he’s not taking them out. You think we are crazy ? Obamas friends got that one down pat.

      • b4k9zp

        lSIS isn’t that much different from the Nazi Gestapo of the Soviet Russian NKVD/KGB who would do the same things, until they found faster ways of eliminating large numbers of people at one time, like the Buchenwald, Treblinka and Auschwitz death camps.

        • olf

          I am aware of that, the point is we have been over run by evil. democrat / muslim / nazi / hitler obarry is at the root of the problem.

          • b4k9zp

            agreed.

  • ernaldin

    Why can’t they?……Simply, they’re stupidly emotional….

  • Semper-Fi

    I just came home from work a little while ago, and took my ‘assault pen’ out of my upper left hand shirt pocket and placed it on my desk. If i wanted to assault and kill someone silently with people nearby, a quick move to the base of the skull and a few twists to scramble the brains and cut the spinal cord and motor nerves will do it in short order. But i don’t do this even though i own much more long range, more powerful magazine fed weapons than an A.R.

  • apzzyk

    WRONG! The term ‘assault rifle’ was in use in 1961 when I got out of the USMC. I had been the supply person for Test Unit 2 – which tested weapons for the unique problems that the MC had as being, according to a Treaty, the ‘designated assault troops’ under this treaty. That is why we were always using ‘full metal jacket’ rounds – that was so that if we encountered armor on landing or on other assaults, we could shot at it and it would pass through some light armor with .30 cal rounds.
    When I got out, they had finished testing the M-14 and rejected it because it would jam too often, then we got the M-15 in and it was ok under expected battlefield conditions.
    From what I learned from the WWII vets who were still on active duty, was that in a landing, the big problem was keeping the enemies heads down so that they might not fire back at you, and the old M-1 did not have the capacity that the AK-47 which had seen battle in WWII, and at this time, the greatest potential enemy was the USSR, so this wad done, just to keep up.
    Here, the M-1 was never designed to be anything but a military weapon. After it fired the last of a clip of 8 rounds, the clip would eject, and while it could be reused, it took a long time to reload it, so in a combat situation, it seldom was according to my sources.
    The magazine fed M-14 and M-15 magazines could be more easily reloaded. For the M1, our cartage belts held only 8 clips which gave us only a maximum of 72 rounds to fire. I think that with the m-14, the magazines held 16 rounds each, and I saw the various designs for magazine holders in the test phase. The originals were take offs on the carriers used with the BAR, and they were probably further modified until we have what we have now.
    A friend from the range – I tried out for the rile team just to miss out on the excitement of playing endless games of Gin or whatever at the barracks, stayed in, became a sniper in Nam and also an aromorer, and had brought his MG gun with a load of the levers needed to convert from semi- to full automatic. He told me that when he gave someone a lever, that he had to inspect it almost daily to make sure that the barrel had been warped by the heat of full automatic.
    One of the features that was being tested was the capacity of the magazine. They were looking at the number of rounds (length) and the ease of movement in a simulated combat situation, and in lab testing they knew of the heat problems related to different bursts. It was fairly well settled that the burst of 3-4 rounds would not produce enough heat to change the configuration or accuracy of the weapon.
    From my experience I never expected to see these rifles being of any use in the civilian world, just like the lack or replacement clips made the M! a single shot weapon that was actually worse than the ‘repeaters’ of old. I still fail to understand how this type of weapon can effectively used in self defense, and do not understand about the big deal being made over the magazine capacity.
    In my opinion, these are just ‘lead’ spray guns. If you have one or tow or several dozen, I just think that you are wasting your money, and if you expect the one you have handy to actually protect you, good luck and get some burial insurance.

  • Spoony

    A liberal, historically, is a destroyer of common sense, subjective, negative, and defies reality to the point of absurdity! Their goal is to challenge everything that’s positive and reverse it’s purpose and meaning so that it becomes null, void, and useless! They will use any excuse to twist reality into something in the twilight zone. Basically they are just worthless.

  • Stan Hoffman

    First of all, while I’m not an avid gun owner, I am a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. I’ve owned a few guns in my day, mostly for hunting and plinking. I’m to old and out of shape for that now.
    Second, the M-16 is a military assault rifle. I carried one for 11 years in the USMC. Great weapon, and very dependable. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16, so technically speaking it is an exact copy of a military assault rifle, however it can only fire semi-automatic. I will not call it anything other than an assault rifle. A liberal tries to rename things to fit their agenda. I will not stoop to their level.
    Third, you want to own an AR-15 or any other civilian copy of an assault rifle, you should have every right to buy one as long as you use it for legal purposes and of course for self protection. People who own a weapon have less of a chance of having some two bit liberal thief break into their home, steal, rape, burn and pillage you. Of course we all know they’ll try and get a two bit educated liberal to find a way to manipulate a law so they can break into your home, steal, rape, burn, and pillage you, and take away your guns so you can’t defend yourself, and they’ll do it under the name of the law. So lets try and get as many voted out of office on all levels. Keep your powder dry and remember, proper maintenance and proper lubrication is all an assault rifle needs to work properly.

    • b4k9zp

      stan, it is not an assault rifle, for an assault rifle, by definition, is capable of firing in EITHER fully-automatic mode or semi-automatic mode. Most AR-15 (all of them made since 1986 in this country, in fact) can fire only in the Semi-automatic mode unless they are illegally converted to fire in full-automatic mode. So it is not an assault weapon or an assault rifle, despite your hysteria.

      • Stan Hoffman

        b4k9zp, you just said that an assault rifle “is capable of firing in EITHER fully-automatic mode or semi-automatic mode. The AR-15 does fire in the semi-automatic mode which you just said defines an assault rifle. The M-1 Grand, and the M-14 fired in semi-automatic mode. And they were assault rifles. At one time, even the black powder rifle was used as an assault rifle. However, if you could understand what I’ve said, I have no problem with people who own the civilian version of an assault rifle, as long as they use it for peaceful and legal purposes. The moment its used for criminal activity, they need to be punished. Obviously you have been in a lot of arguments with Liberals and your anger clouds your mind. And I’m not a liberal, I’m an ultra-conservative. I personally do not engage in arguments with liberals. Their stupid and haven’t a clue between right and wrong. You might want to stop trying to make liberals understand your point of view. Its like talking to a brick wall.

  • Robert

    Only wanta be Tyrants want weapons banned and will try to do so by hook or crook. They also have a hard time understanding a simple english phrase ” Shall not be infringed.”

  • disqus_0NaovmuWmf

    Because liberals get very confused by and are unable to deal with the facts.
    Their heads spin.

  • DevelDoc1

    The title of the article in itself is self-defeating; Why Can’t ..Accept Assault Rifles?” IMHO pro-gun organizations need to start looking at the idea of avoiding the use of the term “Assault Rifle” as it is inflammatory; particularly to those without weapon familiarity. They are AR’s originally built by the Armalite Company. As one of the commenters below indicated, they are facing sporting rifles and are semi-automatic; unless you have a special FFL. These rifles are fun to shoot but look scary as hell to many in the general public; I get all kinds of weird looks when I carry my AR from my car to the local range. Food for thought folks.

  • Media Scrutiny

    Misinformation about “assault rilfles” is Exactly the Scare Tactic that Liberal Illinois Democrat Incumbent Governor Pat Quinn is using against his Republican opponent, Bruce Rauner. Quinn’s latest commercial (based on a “Slate” article from last year) states that an “assault weapon” can “spray” and kill 300+ people easily. You can probably find the ad on YouTube if you look.
    Please Help Illinois Get Rid of Pat Quinn. Remember, ours was the Last State to pass Concealed Carry, yet the Democrats Still use Scare Tactics about Firearms to sway the Low Information Voter.

  • thumper79

    liberals assume that because a weapon looks like a military automatic weapon it is a military automatic weapon. they also believed that a speech maker would make a great president!

    • Just Old

      A speech maker or teleprompter reader.

  • Jon Kelley

    “Assault Rifle” is a real term, with a real – fixed – definition by DoD: A rifle, firing an intermediate-power cartridge, with a removable magazine AND the ability to fire semiautomatic OR fully automatic.

    Therefore, “assault rifles” have been heavily regulated since their inception (ca. WWII) by NFA34.
    As used in the media, “assault rifle” is a malapropism – like so many other words (if I hear one more person misuse the word “tragedy” then something actually tragic will happen – because that person will be undone by their own character…)

    Terms I have generally stopped using:
    – “Assault rifle.” It’s misused anyhow. An M16 or M4 is an “assault rifle” – an AR-15 is NOT.
    – “Tragedy.” It’s horribly misused and overused.
    – “Weapon.” Too broad, and too easily misused (a “weapon” can be ANYTHING – including an empty hand.)
    – “Assault Weapon” – even worse. My hands can be considered an “assault weapon” – IF you assault me FIRST. An “assault weapon” is anything you can use to strike another to cause damage – firearms, bricks, sticks, rocks, bats, belts, or whatever.
    – “Gun” – used alone, there is too much of a visceral reaction. If it’s powder-powered, it’s a “firearm.” If it’s air-powered, then it’s a “BB gun,” “pellet gun,” “airgun,” “paintball marker,” or “airsoft gun.” Using the word “gun” alone causes too much of a psychological reflex reaction in people (other acceptable terms are “rifle,” “shotgun,” “pistol,” “revolver,” or “sidearm.”)

    If language is being used against us, let’s start to use language FOR us. Stop the malapropisms, gently correct. Speak from the intellect, not emotion (doesn’t mean you can’t speak from the heart. Just don’t speak from emotion – emotion doesn’t reason.) Avoid terms that are being used against us, and take away their power.

    (Unfortunately, I don’t think we can take Richard Pryor’s approach to this – he did more to disempower the word “ni**er” through overuse than the NAACP could ever hope to with a “symbolic funeral” held a couple of years ago. Eddie Murphy did much the same thing, but his standup was loosely based on Richard Pryor’s prior work anyhow.)

  • CarolCleary

    Sadly this is not true. I am a liberal and befor anyone makes a snarky comment about my being a “troll” this article ended up in my email so I COULD have reported it as spam. Nonetheless, many of us “liberals” actually SUPPORT” your right to firearms – all the wY up to and including a Sherman Txnk if you so desire!!! What WE do not support is indescriminant access to all forms of firearms for ALL citizens. Adam Lanza, as innocent as he was in light of his cognitive deficits, was not a person qualified to be considered “well regulated militia”. We support firearm access for those capable of knowing how and when to use them, when NOT to use them, upon whom it is NOT appropriate to use them, and the capability to know the difference. As a liberal I PROMISE to never support the disarming of responsible citizens. I also promise that I will never support legally and easily arming a person not capable of discerning that your 9-year old child on a school playground is NOT target practice. Friends – DO NOT let the extremes speak for Americans! We have listened to the outer fringe on both sides for too long! Let us begin to converse together and tell our leaders what is appropriate instead of allowing them to tell us the “other side” is bad and wants to harm you. WE ALL ARE AMERICANS. Let’s converse.

    • Jarhead

      Classic troll.

      • CarolCleary

        Apparently you lack the memory skills, Jarhead, to recall that this landed in my email rather me looking to start a conversation. And I find that neither responses comprehended my point that it is the RIGHT convincing you that the MAJORITY of liberals do not SUPPORT the second amendment. Most liberals DO SUPPORT the Second Amendment with simple prudence of prevention of mentally incapable people from obtaining arms. Of course we liberals think with highly developed Cyngulate coertexes while you Right Wing folk think with highly developed Amygdalas. If you understand what that means then you will then understand the words I am saying instead of the echoes of “leftist troll” that you utter when you aren’t capable of saying anything else.

        • Jarhead

          Grandpa said to never discuss politics, religion or sex habits with a pig. 30

        • Just Old

          We know it’s not your fault that the Libs you put in office want our guns. Grow up.

        • b4k9zp

          Most liberals whom you say do support the second amendment DO NOT ACTUALLY SUPPORT IT, for they want limitations and violations of the right that amendment protects, which is completely against the tone, and intent of the second amendment. Nothing in the 2nd amendment allows government, or any individual or group of individuals to weaken, deny, violate, regulate, undermine, encroach upon, limit, or otherwise INFRINGE on the individual’s right to possess and carry the same arms that are used by the standing army (;police and military) of the time, despite your statements.

          You are a leftist troll who lies about your so-called support of the 2nd amendment.

    • olf

      Being a responsible armed citizen comes with some risk of getting in the wrong hands like leftist – crazies, drugged, drunk, radical mentally ill. Weighing out the benefits we can save lives of the honorable and productive to society. Use of reason and duty we must keep our arms to protect the innocent and our neighbor. The use of reason has become not normal. Only criminals lie and do stupid thinking like obarri and company.

    • b4k9zp

      What you do not support, then, is the second amendment to the Constitution, which clearly says that the right of the citizen to possess and carry “arms” (which term has always been considered to be the weapons that are used by the military and police of the time) shall not be limited, denied, regulated or undermined by anyone in government or by any private individual.

      The well regulated militia, to the founding fathers meant a group of citizens who, because they constantly had possession of, and used, weapons that were at least equal to the weapons used by the standing army of the time, were capable of, basically, bringing home meat for the table, and were thus well regulated.

      The extremists are those who want to regulate or limit a right that by definition (and the wording of the second amendment) shall not be regulated, denied, limited or otherwise infringed.

  • CarolCleary

    I apologize for my typos – typing on a phone is not my forte’

  • Donald Congleton

    THE LIBERALS DO NOT WANT THE REAL TRUTH TO COME OUT

  • carlcasino

    I have an ASSAULT screwdriver in my tool pouch and a nail gun that can spit out a 1500 load of 10d nails in about 10 -15 seconds(depends on my arthritis) . Battery powered and the reload time is about 15-20 seconds and I have killed a 2X12 @ 50 ft. Wait till you see my screw gun.

  • hepette .

    9. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

    Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

    • Just Old

      Then Chicago should be the safest city in the USA. LOL murder capital of the world.

    • b4k9zp

      That has been refuted repeatedly. States with less restrictive gun control laws have fewer gun related deaths.

      Since Detroit’s city police chief has told his citizens they can carry firearms outside their homes under Michigan law, crime, including murders with all kinds of weapons, has decreased drastically. The same has occurred in Chicago once the state and the city finally joined the rest of the country in issuing shall issue carry permits to ordinary citizens in Chicago. The same occurred for a brief period after the Washington District Court held that the Washington DC ban on carrying outside a citizens home was flatly unconstitutional, until DC reinstated the ban.

      • hepette .

        prove it i live in detroit btw

  • This so much bullshit – you guys are assholes to want to try and sell this to people as if it were not bs of the first order – get a life – how many of your group actually served this country?

  • Dave from San Antonio

    Liberals cannot accept facts…they are told not to accept facts…facts go against the agenda of their sheeple-herders…who “think” for them.

  • babby660

    What do you use assault rifles for, anyway? They ain’t called assault rifles for nothin’.

    • b4k9zp

      Since the weapons that were banned under the unconstitutional and useless 1994 “Assault weapon ban” were not assault rifles, despite your hysteria, nothing you say has any validity.

  • Finally a liberal rag The New York Times gets something about guns correct and then points to the actual cause of most firearm shootings. Here is one more NOTE. Go to the New York City Police internet site and look up violent crime statistics, Add up all the violent crime statistics keep them separated by race same as NYPD does. What you get is this in NYC between 87% and 94% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIMES ARE COMMITTED BY BLACKS AND HISPANICS. End of story.

  • PriklyPete

    You can come for my gun and take it if you can pry it from my cold hands but you will never take my soul. Gun control is when you’d like to buy two and walk out with one. I believe in God, our government not so much.

  • Just Old

    How long will it take for them to start arresting your firearm. More and more they are arresting people’s money,cars, homes and any thing else they can. The law has become thief’s and the law allows it. They don’t have to have a reason they just do it. And since guns kill people that would be all they need. They don’t have to arrest anyone or charge anyone with a crime. It is legalize theft and our politicians let them get away with it. One day they will start and you can’t do anything about it. Why do you think they want to know everyone that buys a gun. They keep very good records and know where most of them nasty guns are. You know people don’t kill people guns do and will need to be arrested. Your government at work to protect you from guns killing people.

  • There has never been a time
    in recent history when guns especially
    assault and battle rifles were more needed, The southern border is being overrun with countless
    foreigners whose intentions are unknown.. we’re being threatened by islamic jihadist when the
    Oval Office has an Islamic sympathizer at the helm . . there are numerous Muslim agents in the
    Obama administration.
    The Attorney General has put military grade weapons into the hands of Mexican cartels
    who have already killed a Border Patrol agent.. . . . . the threat is there, the need is justified
    and the forefathers knew citizens would be the final battle line when SHTF .
    AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE THE PEOPLE NEED GUNS TO PROTECT OURSELVES FROM PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY ..

  • tinkerunique

    Maybe it’s my background as a legal hunter, AND the past experience as a Navy Small Arms Instructor, but the AR-15 is NOT an alleged “assault weapon as some would like to classify it. In MANY states the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle/carbine IS a legal hunting gun. The “rifle” or “carbine” has to do with the barrel length. True assault weapons are firearms like the Mac-10, Tech-9, or UZI that the Secret Service can carry under their rain coats. < THEY amount to a long=barreled pistol with a hi-capacity magazine and DO shoot FULL-AUTO, like a machine gun. They spray bullets. The AR guns are known for being accurate to 500-600 yards with optics, and WILL take down a deer, varmint, or elk IF placed in the right spot. California Senator Finestein is famous to dress one up with fore-grip, collapsible stock, optics and a hi-capacity magazine, and was once seen with one that had a double-drum magazine. I'm told she has armed guards wherever she goes AND she has a Carry Permit. Most of the pictures of her holding the "Assault Weapon, she has her trigger finger ON the trigger. California has a LARGE percentage of "illegals" that have been given drivers licenses. < residency status = voters??? < just what 0'bummer wants.

    • b4k9zp

      actually, the MAC-10, MAC-11, Uzi, and H&K MP5 sub guns, as well as the old Thompson M1928 A1 Tommy gun and the M3 Grease gun are submachine guns, not assault rifles. Assault rifles fire a downsized rifle cartridge, as you properly state. But because the Uzi, the H&K MP5 and its variants, and the MAC-10 and MAC 11 use HANDGUN cartridges, they are classed as submachine guns. The “TEC 9” was declared to be an assault weapon, even though it is normally a semi-auto pistol, but it can be purchased (with the proper paper work) as a fully-automatic weapon in 9 mm, so again, it is a sub machine gun, not an assault weapon.

  • FLOCK THE COMMIE LIBERALS

  • canislupus

    It’s just as easy to call an 1860, single shot Springfield with fixed bayonet, used by both sides in the Civil War, an assault rifle.

  • BuzzLOL

    . Blaming guns for religious terrorist/drug addicted/murderers is as stupid as blaming food for obesity addction/gigantic bubble butts… like Pres. Obama says, let’s stop doing stupid…

  • ImnXntric

    In the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun
    control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the
    sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

    It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year.Little handguns do.
    So, Maybe we should ban the hand guns instead!!!

    • Kelly Guthridge

      You know there are more than 11,000 people killed annually in Driving accidents…. So, are you going to ban all Motorized Ground Transportation too? How about all of those individuals who kill others with knifes… should we ban knifes, or perhaps require a Universal Background Check before you can buy a dinner knife! Then we have those who have actually beaten others to death; so let’s pass a Constitutional Ban on Fist… Off with their Hands!

      You know… what’s big and scary is Extremist Liberal Retards like you that don’t either have the Common Sense that GOD gave them or they refuse to use it… because you have bought into all of the Communist Lies of the Democrat Party…

    • b4k9zp

      actually, we should ban neither. What should be done is enforce the laws against robbery, rape, murder and assault that are not being enforced. By that I mean trying the person, finding them guilty, giving them about 24 months, instead of 17-20 years, to prove their innocence, and executing them in the county courthouse square of the location of the murder.

  • Mike Fama

    What the real under lying issue is, if American citizens have “assault” rifles it would slow down their process to issue marshal law. Obama and the Democrats want a one party government, basically to take over the USA and turn it into another Russia or China.

    • b4k9zp

      It isn’t “marshal law”. THe proper term is “martial law”. It means law enforced by the military, not by civilian police forces.

  • Al Toth

    Sure is a lot of misinformed citizen in this discussion. Please everyone read and get your facts right.

  • Tec Sg Beatty

    You are NOT helping our side by agreeing with them that they are “assault rifles”. By doing so, you allow them to define the argument. Quit helping the enemy.

  • leadfoot320

    I WATCHED SANDY HOOK LIVE ! I SAW THE POLICE REMOVE THE AR15 FROM THE TRUNK OF THE SHOOTERS CAR ! ON LIVE T.V. !! HOW DID A GUN LOCKED IN THE TRUNK KILL ALL THOSE VICTIMS??
    HE WAS ARMED WITH A SIG AND A GLOCK ACCORDING TO EARLY REPORTS !!
    I HAVE 2 GUNS, THAT IF THEY HAD PISTOL GRIPS, WOULD BE CALLED ASSAULT WEAPONS ! (I DID THAT ON PURPOSE)

    • b4k9zp

      Even before they removed a weapon (that proved to be a shotgun) from the trunk of a car, after dark, they showed an AR-15 style rifle being removed from the front seat of a car (not clear if it was the same car (dark colored, though) in daytime, this was shortly after the news that the so-called incident had occurred.

      Funny thing, though, if you google “FBI Uniform Crime Reports” for 2012, and look up Table 12, “Crimes reported by police departments by state and city” for Connecticut, under the city of Newtown, you find ZERO murders committed in 2012. And you find no murders listed for “Sandy Hook” either. If you go to the metropolitan statistical areas for Connecticut, that contains Newtown and Sandy Hook, you also find no murders listed for 2012.

  • C. W. Good

    A rifle is a rifle. Liberals are idiots, period. I, for one, favor corporal punishment. I’m sure that I’m not alone. Liberals, for all their stupidity, should remember that.
    Sic Semper Tyranis
    Semper Fidelis

  • tinkerunique

    It’s about emotion and perception, NOT FACT. Guns kill people just like cars make drunks kill people. Funny thing is, they take a LEGAL hunting rifle/carbine and call it an assault weapon because it LOOKS military.

  • Vernon Cunningham

    as children, we were enamored with toy guns that had all the bells and whistles. we even had ray guns that shot a puff of powder. Then we got our daisey BB gun. Then a .22 caliber rifle. From there we followed our hearts desires. These so called assult rifles are nothing more than a thing like the fancy toys we had. They look fascinating. An assult weapon is a 50 caliber machine gun used in war to assult a position held by the enemy. A civilian AR 15 is a rifle. It comes with fancy attachments. It looks really scary. But it is only a barrel and a trigger group surrounded with add ons. So liberals want to limit magazine capacity. Frankly it is easier to carry extra 10 round mags and reload. This takes about 1 1/2 seconds. Or less. a mad shooter doesn’t fire continuously. He takes aim. and looks for the next target. There is no time lost if you are using 10 round mags. And since we are not allowed fully automatic weapons, the design is not important. So I wish Liberal gun haters would stop using the wrong words to describe a rifle.

  • Proud_to_be_American

    dianne feinKENstein claims that looking at thousand of pictures of guns makes her an expert.
    If that’s the case I know of thousands of adolescent boys who are Gynecologists!

  • dockilldare

    assault weapon is a political term used to spread fear to the ignorant of guns. calling any long gun (semi auto or other wise) that has a detachable mag, bayonet lug, flash suppressor, folding/telescoping stock and pistol grip an assault weapon. Assault rifle is a professional term used by the military to describe any rifle firing an intermediate round with selective fire..

  • Ibcamn

    liberals are just ignorant,look at obamas,this guy has no information on reality,none!.obama and his cronies,don’t know what there talking about half the time,have you ever heard a liberal anti-gun douchebag describe a weapon?they have no clue what their talking about,but yet call us,the average american,slow,dull witted and uninformed and missinformed,low or average IQ,while they say the average liberal is well educated and above average to high IQ and well informed!wow,if you listen to a liberal discribe the “assault rifles”they hate so much you would swear to god,they are just above the IQ of your household pet (dog or cat)!and they are the ones miss and un informed,i may not spell the greatest,but i can tear down and assemble a weapon and know what the parts are called!these liberals don’t even try to look up what they are about to talk about!and they call us stupid!i’m just wondering if maybe trhe new,”low-informed”labeling is gonna cause a stir in the sheeple community?i mean,obama is talking about them right?(sheeple;the bunch of americans asleep and or following the liberals agenda and partaking in the koolaid)…just saying

  • Al Toth

    Brat, just remember Hilter was a Christian also

    • b4k9zp

      That’s a blatant lie. His upbringing was as a Jew wasn’t it? And in his later life he worshiped Odin, the chief of the Norse pantheon of “gods”. He was no Christian, for he hated Jews, which by definition made him no Christian.

  • Al Toth

    Robo, I feel sorry for you, with an attitude like yours you won’t go far in life. Someday grow up and become a productive part of this world.

  • Go jacks

    Assault is an action. You punch somebody in the face in the squared circle, it’s boxing. You punch somebody in the face in a bar, it’s assault. You can assault somebody with a board. They don’t call it an assault 2×4

  • mtman2

    Somehow the line of educational backgrounds, in OUR subjugated socialist system, the idea was implanted that opinions are important without any real knowledge of the subject matter.
    Like sheep do baa-baa, “everybody run this way, no that way now” ~!

  • MASTERMECH

    As a retired service member who holds a COMBAT ACTION medal and a few COMBAT “V” and GOLD STARS to accompany the medal, have discovered that such weapons inaccurately labeled as “assault” weapons are in fact a multi-purpose weapon designed to have a selective rate of fire for the expressed purpose of DEFENSE or AGGRESSION deemed necessary by the situation and OPERATOR. The weapon cannot and will not commit the crime or carnage associated with it’s MISUSE. That MISUSE is the sole responsibility of the OPERATOR who, is the guilty party. Many in our society are nat mature enough to understand and hold accountable the “OPERATOR” in these cases. Taking away “guns” only supports the criminals which, MOST are just to ignorant to see. To me taking away a defense tool and enabling the criminal may come within jurisdiction of the “RICO ACT”, think about that!! I will guarantee that if I were to loose any fire arms, my fall back is in place, tested and ready and does not require a chemical reaction to operate. It could make the standard 12″+ screw driver one deadly “ASSAULT SCREW DRIVER”, oh CRAP there goes my tool box as an “assault tool storage locker”. Society is getting sicker by the day, nobody’s god may be of assistance.

  • ABBAsFernando

    Radical communist LIBERALS desperately need to disarm Americans before they begin to murder their enemies.

  • J. Harp

    The Communist Democraps are liars and assholes! The facts mean NOTHING to them as they continue to lie their way to the ends the want to achieve, which is to disarm EVERY person in this country! These low-life, scumbag sons-o’-bitches are intent on destroying the United States as a Constitutional Republic and replacing it with a Communist Police State WHICH THEY WILL RUN IN PERPETUITY! The only reason they have not done so yet is the 300,000,000 firearms now in private hands in this country! IF they are able to disarm everyone, they will roll right over anyone who stands in their way!

  • jreb57

    Liberals always have a problem with facts. Rather than facts driving their agenda, their agenda drives the “facts”.