They needed a term that would encompass any object they ever wanted to ban the public from possessing in the future... so they came up with assault "weapon".Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑ Congress writes the laws, the ATF carries them out. Now you are reaching. I
Next, from the get go I said posted links from congress. You said they were lying.
Yup, they are. Congress codified semi auto sports rifles with exterior features that make them look military was assault WEAPONS because they are not by the long established definition, Assault RIFLES.
The NFAs codify what is a machine gun, which is for the most part any weapon (in this context) that fires on automatic or burst.
Military weapons like the one you posted are defined as assault RIFLE.
I know your critical thinking skills are lacking but if you are correct and a semi auto sports rifle with exterior parts that make it look military please explain why congress and state legislatures have to codify what an assault weapon is. They would have simply called it an assault RIFLE.
'nuff said.....
RedheadedStranger » 17 Dec 2023, 3:23 pm » wrote: ↑ They needed a term that would encompass any object they ever wanted to ban the public from possessing in the future... so they came up with assault "weapon".
A baseball bat or a tire iron can just as easily be classified as an assault "weapon" as any firearm... and therefore banned at any time.
Anything someone can assault another person with is an assault "weapon".
Progressive speak 101.
Yeah, that lightweight *** is never going to agree to those terms. You notice that he answered you, and not me? There's a reason. He's **** trolling you.Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑ He already agreed. I just quoted it.
This must be under his BlackVegtable name. He doesn't have enough OPs under his new ID yet. Challenge: Mod is to randomly choose a page from our OP threads. Any page. Random. Mod is to review each page and determine which member has the most OPs where the author had his own intelligent thoughts.
Stipulations:
1. Titles don't count.
2. Insults don't count.
3. It's not about whether the individual thought's are right or wrong, it's about them having their own intelligent thoughts that weren't copy/pasted from the internet.
4. Articles are fine, but there must be intelligent commentary about their own article.
Stakes: It used to be a permanent ban. But I would like to change that...sort of. The loser must post and pin the following for a week:
I _______________ (loser's name) hereby acknowledge that I am _______________________(winner's name) little bitch. _________________ (winner's name) is far more intelligent than me, better than me, and just plain overall superior to me. If ___________________(winner's name) says jump. I ask how high. If ________________ (winner's name) says to clean his toilet with my toothbrush after taking a massive ****, then I must say "it would be honor, my majesty."
If the loser does not post and pin this for a week immediately at the conclusion of the challenge, then he is to be permanently banned.
Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑ Enough of this lie. It's run it's course. Ok? This lie doesn't have currency. It never did. Like ever.
Now you already agreed a few posts ago. You can't hide behind your lie anymore.
You are finished. Buh-bye!
Let's do this @Cannonpointer
Cannonpointer » 17 Dec 2023, 3:33 pm » wrote: ↑ Yeah, that lightweight *** is never going to agree to those terms. You notice that he answered you, and not me? There's a reason. He's **** trolling you.
Mind the last word of my last sentence, there' He's trolling YOU. I'm done, unless and until he tell ME that he accepts your challenge.
By the way, a better challenge would be just to have him submit ten and you submit ten - or something like that. But he doesn't have ANY.
No **** - and you just let him troll the **** out of you.Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑ He trolls everyone. Every posts he makes he is trolling. Every member he responds to , he is trolling. That's nothing new.
The anti-gun crowd embrace and promote the term "assault weapon" because it covers ALL firearms and not just a select few rifles.Huey » 17 Dec 2023, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Congress knew they could get the easily gullible into believing these semi autos are military weapons.
BV is proof of this.
Well when it was built for military assault you could call it that. That's what the gun was designed for.RedheadedStranger » 17 Dec 2023, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑ The anti-gun crowd embrace and promote the term "assault weapon" because it covers ALL firearms and not just a select few rifles.
An 8 shot .22 revolver is an "assault weapon" by their definition because it can be fire multiple times without needing to be reloaded.
OUtlawing the private ownership of firearms is the goal. Don't ever think it's not.
Cannonpointer » 17 Dec 2023, 3:38 pm » wrote: ↑ No **** - and you just let him troll the **** out of you.
In YOUR mind, he has agreed to a convoluted challenge. In my mind, he has agreed to jack ****.
Just LOOK at the post where he agreed to "challenge." Was "challenge" spelt out in THAT post, such that I could, in good faith, agree that this poster on this day with this post agreed to this challenge? In any OTHER post, such that I do not have to be inspector **** Clue?So? in order to officiate a challenge I understand to have been entered into voluntarily?
No, sir. It **** wasn't. He's doing the same thing to you that I do to my dog with chicken bones.
God I'm cruel.
I would count my manhood cheap if I could not say,Vegas » 17 Dec 2023, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Actually, I am trolling him. I knew what challenge he meant, but I also knew that it would piss him off if I replaced it with my original challenge...and it worked. I pissed him off.
I mean, yeah I brought you into it, but I did it for the entertainment. Please forgive me, but please also understand that sacrifices had to be made for the benefit of the whole.Your sacrifice will not be forgotten.
Bidencrimefamily » 17 Dec 2023, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Well when it was built for military assault you could call it that. That's what the gun was designed for.
Cannonpointer » 17 Dec 2023, 3:44 pm » wrote: ↑ I would count my manhood cheap if I could not say,
I was instrumental in trolling that cuckhold gay.
Then this is an "assault weapon".Bidencrimefamily » 17 Dec 2023, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Well when it was built for military assault you could call it that. That's what the gun was designed for.

Yeah a one shot weapon. Not a assault rifle.RedheadedStranger » 17 Dec 2023, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑ Then this is an "assault weapon".
It was manufactured exclusively for use in war time... so by the progressive definition, the public shouldn't have them.
We're talking about assault weapons... not assault rifles.
Move that goal post, fool.
Bidencrimefamily » 17 Dec 2023, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑ Well when it was built for military assault you could call it that. That's what the gun was designed for.