What is an "assault rifle"?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein

But enough arguing history and especially world war two. The fact that it only needs to have happened once in history to really have any merit, even only if it is a factor in deterrence and not the main reason itself. The founding fathers sure felt it did, and that fact can be seen by reading their collective writings on firearm ownership. So we need to focus more on factors not associated with the technology being used in these rampage shootings. Mental health, firearms education, better enforcement of laws all can lower gun crime and not restrict the rights of astronomically overwhelming majority of law abiding civilian gun owners.


Exactly ... and here's an analogy for everyone. What if this 20 year old kid took his mother's car keys and drove down to the local school and then ran over 20 kids and killed them when they were outside waiting for their parents to pick them up? What if occurrences of mass killings using cars happened every week? Would the government decide to ban all cars?

Obviously not ... they would instead make parents more responsible with their car keys, and also try to figure out why these people go freakin' mental and want to kill masses of people.

 

[hattaresguy]

Assault rifle is a term that was coined by the Germans, I think possible Hitler. It refers to a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge and is capable of automatic fire.


The STG44 is the grand daddy of all assault rifles.

Contrary to what the idiot media reports a Bushmaster is nothing but a semi automatic boar rifle really.

 

[bmwjohn]

I read something several years back (I don't remember where but it was reputable - Forbes, Cato Institute, WSJ, etc. not national inquirer, etc.)but they examined many "assault rifles" and found the single theme in ALL of them was that they were basically BLACK in color. Other rifles that had similar features but had light wood stock, etc. were NOT viewed as assault rifles. Don't know if that is still the "official" view today.Wonder about a "light skinned" mini-14?

 

[Boatowner]

You know the fools parade Obama appointed will come up with something dumb. With someone like Biden in charge what else can happen? So, the hope is the least harm will be done. The worst will be that all firearms must be registered. Registration means confiscation, count on it. So I would take a renewal of the so called assault weapon ban, it was pretty meaningless anyway. Allowing sane people to have guns in schools is part of the solution. Why would a trained and armed teacher or principal be any worse than a cop?

With all due respect to Mr. Robenstein, the Germans had the finest, best trained and disciplined army in WWII, especially up until about 1943. What they did not have was the best equipped army, that was the United States of America. In fact, the American army was the world's first fully mechanized army. The German army depended on horses right up to the end. I think the quality of the German army was pretty well proved at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. What Rommel could have done if Hitler had not kept diverting his supplies to the eastern front.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Boatowner
You know the fools parade Obama appointed will come up with something dumb. With someone like Biden in charge what else can happen? So, the hope is the least harm will be done. The worst will be that all firearms must be registered. Registration means confiscation, count on it. So I would take a renewal of the so called assault weapon ban, it was pretty meaningless anyway. Allowing sane people to have guns in schools is part of the solution. Why would a trained and armed teacher or principal be any worse than a cop?

With all due respect to Mr. Robenstein, the Germans had the finest, best trained and disciplined army in WWII, especially up until about 1943. What they did not have was the best equipped army, that was the United States of America. In fact, the American army was the world's first fully mechanized army. The German army depended on horses right up to the end. I think the quality of the German army was pretty well proved at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. What Rommel could have done if Hitler had not kept diverting his supplies to the eastern front.


I never said the Germans did not have some of the best troops in the world. Their biggest issue was logistics. They could not produce enough to fight America or the Soviet Union in a protracted conflict. The highest German production was in 44, but even then they could not replace losses, or even fuel the tanks and planes. But even then they produced less than Germany did in WW1 in many areas. If you look at tank production especially. Also there was a nightmare with having too complex an inventory in weapons. Look at all the various caliber pistols and various models they used. And yes...mechanization was on the side of America. We were the only army to be able to operate very far from a rail line and supply our troops. Infact a prominent general in the German Bundeswehr said that if they had the logistics of the USA, the war would have gone a lot different.

Generals on the ground like Rommel gave the Germans a true fighting chance until, as you mention 1943, when Allied production so outpaced Axis, that Germany was in deep trouble. They also had some of the best squad tactics. Germany was the best tactical force in Europe bar none, but the US had the strategic advantage. The best comparison would be the Luftwaffe versus the U.S. Army Air Corps. The Luftwaffe was largely a short range tactical force (one of the reasons why the battle of Britain was a failure, but not the only one) while the USAAC could project force over distance better as it was a strategic bombing force versus a tactical one built more to support ground troops with fighter and light to medium bomber cover.

Again though...off topic.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Boatowner
You know the fools parade Obama appointed will come up with something dumb. With someone like Biden in charge what else can happen? So, the hope is the least harm will be done. The worst will be that all firearms must be registered. Registration means confiscation, count on it. So I would take a renewal of the so called assault weapon ban, it was pretty meaningless anyway. Allowing sane people to have guns in schools is part of the solution. Why would a trained and armed teacher or principal be any worse than a cop?

With all due respect to Mr. Robenstein, the Germans had the finest, best trained and disciplined army in WWII, especially up until about 1943. What they did not have was the best equipped army, that was the United States of America. In fact, the American army was the world's first fully mechanized army. The German army depended on horses right up to the end. I think the quality of the German army was pretty well proved at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. What Rommel could have done if Hitler had not kept diverting his supplies to the eastern front.


I never said the Germans did not have some of the best troops in the world. Their biggest issue was logistics. They could not produce enough to fight America or the Soviet Union in a protracted conflict. The highest German production was in 44, but even then they could not replace losses, or even fuel the tanks and planes. But even then they produced less than Germany did in WW1 in many areas. If you look at tank production especially. Also there was a nightmare with having too complex an inventory in weapons. Look at all the various caliber pistols and various models they used. And yes...mechanization was on the side of America. We were the only army to be able to operate very far from a rail line and supply our troops. Infact a prominent general in the German Bundeswehr said that if they had the logistics of the USA, the war would have gone a lot different.

Generals on the ground like Rommel gave the Germans a true fighting chance until, as you mention 1943, when Allied production so outpaced Axis, that Germany was in deep trouble. They also had some of the best squad tactics. Germany was the best tactical force in Europe bar none, but the US had the strategic advantage. The best comparison would be the Luftwaffe versus the U.S. Army Air Corps. The Luftwaffe was largely a short range tactical force (one of the reasons why the battle of Britain was a failure, but not the only one) while the USAAC could project force over distance better as it was a strategic bombing force versus a tactical one built more to support ground troops with fighter and light to medium bomber cover.

Again though...off topic.


The Nazis invaded the Soviet Union to gain access to the vast wheat fields of the Ukraine, oil fields of the Caucases, Citrus fields of the Black Sea coast, iron in the Urals, coal, copper....etc.... That and Hitler hated Communism. But the Nazis believed that with a show of force, the USSR would fall like other eastern European countries had. With access to these vast resources, they could focus on defeating the Brits

The Brits had natural resources and fighting men of Canada helping them as well as Lend-Lease loans and equipment sales from the USA when the Nazis invaded the USSR. When you think about how much iron ore comes across the Lake Superior, timber, petroleum, wheat...etc... that Canada could produce, Hitler was going to need to cut off the UK from Canada (which the U-Boats attempted) or get a similar supply for Germany

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: bmwjohn
I read something several years back (I don't remember where but it was reputable - Forbes, Cato Institute, WSJ, etc. not national inquirer, etc.)but they examined many "assault rifles" and found the single theme in ALL of them was that they were basically BLACK in color. Other rifles that had similar features but had light wood stock, etc. were NOT viewed as assault rifles. Don't know if that is still the "official" view today.Wonder about a "light skinned" mini-14?


It is racism. They hate black rifles.

 

[Loobed]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Boatowner
You know the fools parade Obama appointed will come up with something dumb. With someone like Biden in charge what else can happen? So, the hope is the least harm will be done. The worst will be that all firearms must be registered. Registration means confiscation, count on it. So I would take a renewal of the so called assault weapon ban, it was pretty meaningless anyway. Allowing sane people to have guns in schools is part of the solution. Why would a trained and armed teacher or principal be any worse than a cop?

With all due respect to Mr. Robenstein, the Germans had the finest, best trained and disciplined army in WWII, especially up until about 1943. What they did not have was the best equipped army, that was the United States of America. In fact, the American army was the world's first fully mechanized army. The German army depended on horses right up to the end. I think the quality of the German army was pretty well proved at Kasserine Pass in early 1943. What Rommel could have done if Hitler had not kept diverting his supplies to the eastern front.


I never said the Germans did not have some of the best troops in the world. Their biggest issue was logistics. They could not produce enough to fight America or the Soviet Union in a protracted conflict. The highest German production was in 44, but even then they could not replace losses, or even fuel the tanks and planes. But even then they produced less than Germany did in WW1 in many areas. If you look at tank production especially. Also there was a nightmare with having too complex an inventory in weapons. Look at all the various caliber pistols and various models they used. And yes...mechanization was on the side of America. We were the only army to be able to operate very far from a rail line and supply our troops. Infact a prominent general in the German Bundeswehr said that if they had the logistics of the USA, the war would have gone a lot different.

Generals on the ground like Rommel gave the Germans a true fighting chance until, as you mention 1943, when Allied production so outpaced Axis, that Germany was in deep trouble. They also had some of the best squad tactics. Germany was the best tactical force in Europe bar none, but the US had the strategic advantage. The best comparison would be the Luftwaffe versus the U.S. Army Air Corps. The Luftwaffe was largely a short range tactical force (one of the reasons why the battle of Britain was a failure, but not the only one) while the USAAC could project force over distance better as it was a strategic bombing force versus a tactical one built more to support ground troops with fighter and light to medium bomber cover.

Again though...off topic.


The Nazis invaded the Soviet Union to gain access to the vast wheat fields of the Ukraine, oil fields of the Caucases, Citrus fields of the Black Sea coast, iron in the Urals, coal, copper....etc.... That and Hitler hated Communism. But the Nazis believed that with a show of force, the USSR would fall like other eastern European countries had. With access to these vast resources, they could focus on defeating the Brits

The Brits had natural resources and fighting men of Canada helping them as well as Lend-Lease loans and equipment sales from the USA when the Nazis invaded the USSR. When you think about how much iron ore comes across the Lake Superior, timber, petroleum, wheat...etc... that Canada could produce, Hitler was going to need to cut off the UK from Canada (which the U-Boats attempted) or get a similar supply for Germany



You people really have to stop the Hitler nonsense. 99.9% of WWII history you hear or read every day is made up propaganda, and the ofter 0.1% is wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/Icebreaker-Who-Sta...+breaker+soviet

Fact: Hitler never banned guns in Germany. In fact, he did the exact opposite. Civilian ownership of gun was banned by the Treaty of Versailles. The jewish controlled Weimar Republic further restricted other weapons for self defense except for jews who were allowed to own and carry guns. There were many murders committed by jews with guns in Germany between 1918 and 1933. When Hitler came to power, one of the first things he did was allowed Germans to own guns to defend themselves. He also restricted jews possession of guns, for obvious reasons, which is all you hear about. There was such a problem with young girls getting raped by jews, that Hitler passed a law forbidding girls under the age of 40 from working for jews. Contrary to the fantasies in this country about jews being incapable of committing horrendous crimes, it is a fact that they do.

Leo Frank raped and killed Mary Phagan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank

Leopold and Loeb kidnapped and killed Robert Franks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb


The more evil you make Hitler, the more heroic you feel about yourselves. I am not interested in ludicrous anti-German fantasies, just like I am not interested in the current anti-Muslim fantasies.


P.S. Rommel was a farce.

 

[Trajan]

I would really like you to prove that the Weimar Republic was controlled by Jews. That only Jews were allowed to own guns.

Very anti-Semite of you.

 

[GoHack]

Originally Posted By: danthaman1980
Originally Posted By: Gabe
Originally Posted By: GMBoy
gun grabbers don't know history and believe whatever the media tells them...and cannot rationalize their thought of how ANY gun law will stop a CRIMINAL who, by simple definition, doesn't obey laws.


That doesn't mean we need to make it easy for a criminal to get a gun... I want a criminal to have a very difficult time getting a gun.


I can agree with that - violent criminals should be prohibited from purchasing and owning guns (by the way, they already are). And gun stores should not be allowed to sell guns to violent criminals (by the way, that law is already in place as well). However, I do believe that firearm owners need to be responsible and limit access to their firearms. Kids and mentally ill or unstable individuals should not be able to access firearms in the home.


Wasn't it the Obama Administration that allowed guns to be sold to criminals, in their Fast & Furious program?

A federal operation, dubbed Fast and Furious, allowed weapons from the U.S. to pass into the hands of suspected gun smugglers so the arms could be traced to the higher echelons of Mexican drug cartels. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which ran the operation, has lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which have been linked to crimes, including the fatal shooting of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010.

Do remember, if guns are banned, only the government and the criminals will have them.


.

 

[Boatowner]

[/quote] I never said the Germans did not have some of the best troops in the world. Their biggest issue was logistics. They could not produce enough to fight America or the Soviet Union in a protracted conflict. The highest German production was in 44, but even then they could not replace losses, or even fuel the tanks and planes. But even then they produced less than Germany did in WW1 in many areas. If you look at tank production especially. Also there was a nightmare with having too complex an inventory in weapons. Look at all the various caliber pistols and various models they used. And yes...mechanization was on the side of America. We were the only army to be able to operate very far from a rail line and supply our troops. Infact a prominent general in the German Bundeswehr said that if they had the logistics of the USA, the war would have gone a lot different.

Generals on the ground like Rommel gave the Germans a true fighting chance until, as you mention 1943, when Allied production so outpaced Axis, that Germany was in deep trouble. They also had some of the best squad tactics. Germany was the best tactical force in Europe bar none, but the US had the strategic advantage. The best comparison would be the Luftwaffe versus the U.S. Army Air Corps. The Luftwaffe was largely a short range tactical force (one of the reasons why the battle of Britain was a failure, but not the only one) while the USAAC could project force over distance better as it was a strategic bombing force versus a tactical one built more to support ground troops with fighter and light to medium bomber cover.

Again though...off topic. [/quote]



You people really have to stop the Hitler nonsense. 99.9% of WWII history you hear or read every day is made up propaganda, and the ofter 0.1% is wrong.

Fact: Hitler never banned guns in Germany. In fact, he did the exact opposite. Civilian ownership of gun was banned by the Treaty of Versailles. The jewish controlled Weimar Republic further restricted other weapons for self defense except for jews who were allowed to own and carry guns. There were many murders committed by jews with guns in Germany between 1918 and 1933. When Hitler came to power, one of the first things he did was allowed Germans to own guns to defend themselves. He also restricted jews possession of guns, for obvious reasons, which is all you hear about. There was such a problem with young girls getting raped by jews, that Hitler passed a law forbidding girls under the age of 40 from working for jews. Contrary to the fantasies in this country about jews being incapable of committing horrendous crimes, it is a fact that they do.

The more evil you make Hitler, the more heroic you feel about yourselves. I am not interested in ludicrous anti-German fantasies, just like I am not interested in the current anti-Muslim fantasies.

P.S. Rommel was a farce.
[/quote]

Robenstein, I think are in agreement. Germany never even went on wartime footing for production until after the loss of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. They were also incredibly stupid in not recruiting the Ukranians instead of mistreating them. Just as they were incredibly stupid in persecuting and then killing Jews, who in Germany were loyal Germans, many with great WWI records. I also agree with you regarding the problems the Germans had with complexity. We made lots of a lousy tank, the Sherman. The Germans kept trying to come up with the ultimate weapon. The supply problems of not having standardized equipment made maintenance a constant problem. Still, the production by every side in WWII is beyond comprehension.

Which brings me to Mr. Anti-Semitic above. I will never buy into the Nazi and neo-Nazi lies about Jews and why the Germans were so justified in invading everyone. Nazism was and is a Satanic cult dedicated to death and destruction. I will get my history from real historic sources. Just so you don't think that means modern history books, I have read the contemporaneous news stories in the old bound copies. In other words, I got my history at the source, not from some Nazi guru selling hate for people because of an accident of birth.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Loobed



The more evil you make Hitler, the more heroic you feel about yourselves. I am not interested in ludicrous anti-German fantasies, just like I am not interested in the current anti-Muslim fantasies.


P.S. Rommel was a farce.



What?

I did not say anything anti-German or really anything anti-Nazi. Just that their armies ran on iron, petroleum, and food just like the UK and everyone else.

As far as the anti-Semitic activities of the Nazis, a lot of that was based on The International Jew published by Henry Ford. Hitler allegedly had a large picture of Henry Ford in his study and a well worn copy of the book. During the Nuremberg Trials, many Nazis cited Ford's book.

 

[Robenstein]

It is true that in 1938 the Germans Weapons Act did loosen up from the previous 1928 law, but it did prohibit Jews from owning or manufacturing arms and ammunition.


However, you have to remember that while on paper this is an opening of freedom, it was especially aimed at disenfranchising German Jews' right to defense. They had already been largely stripped of all rights by the Nuremberg Act of 35 and the Law for the Restoration of the Professional service in 33.

And remember that starting in 1933 there were concentration camps in Germany also. So from 33-38 Hitler made sure to lock up the dangerous elements, disenfranchise the Jews, and then after the populace was subdued, then he loosened the laws, knowing full well that the population was either fully on board or silent and would not resist. So yes, he did not make gun control worse, but he sure let the Weimar laws stand and work for him for 5 years before deciding to repeal it.

And there were members in the party that would have liked to repeal all private firearms ownership, some of those were in the line of succession in the party. Had they come to power, there is quite a chance that only party members in good standing would have been armed.

 

[Bill in Utah]

This thread has gone off topic.

Time for a lock