When anti gun “experts” want to debate you
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (137)
sorted by:
Youve never seen or fired an AR have you?
No I haven't, I'm not american, I literally can't(would love to though), never implied I had, what I learned was from videos watched and research.
What about any of what I said is wrong? what is your point?
Your argument is as ridiculous as saying lets call every car a camero because a camero is a car.
Stg-44 The term sturmgewehr referred to the Stg-44 a particular rifle not a class of rifles.
Should make you wonder what the "Stg" stands for, hmmmmm...
S T urm G ewehr
...Yes I know it comes from STG 44... What I meant, and this would be obvious to anyone with a modicum of intellectual capacity, is that said rifle was, potentially, the inspiration to create the class of weapon.
Up until that point military forces of every nation were still using full length rifles firing powerful rounds that would be ballistically viable to distances of 800 yards+ for infantry
Germany sees the need to have a smaller, handier rifle, firing a less powerful, intermediate round, for closer combat ranges, so they create the sturmgewehr, which highly influences the creation of the AK, a smaller rifle, firing a intermediate round (7.62x39 instead of 7.62x54r), essentially creating the new class of weapon, they even look similar.
Did you really think I didn't know about the STG 44? I love how you believe you had a big "gotcha" moment there, only made you look like a retard.
I would suggest you do some studying yourself, but in your case what is needed is a higher IQ, and that, of course, is impossible.
That's funny, you didn't mention the Stg-44 in your rants, only that the sturmgewehr was a new class of rifles.
Evidently what you meant and what you posted were evidently two separate things.
Evidently I guess..
I'm curious to know where does the Mp-43 and Mp-44 fit into this little fable tale of yours since they were the predecessors to the Stg-44.
You might want to look up what Mp stands for...
Do you even know the legal definition of the so called dreaded "assault weapon"?
I was content to write off your statements as inexperience and honest ignorance, now I just question your honesty.
Because if you had you would know that the AR-15 could never be used as an assault weapon. It is a very small caliber, hardly larger than a kids first .22 semiautomatic. It looks menacing but it isnt. Consumer grade body armor is effective against it and military grade armor isnt dented by it. It is a small light weapon with no kick. It is a fun platform to shoot and is easily handled by women and children. It isnt a gun you would use to hunt a deer and definitely wouldnt be my first choice, or even 10th choice, as a defensive or offensive platform. As far as weapons go, it is hardly more than a toy.
Have you ever watched a biathalon? Where the athlete cross country skis and then shoots at targets from a standing, kneeling or prone position? You see them hit the target and it is like a plink? That is similar to your basic .556 or .223 round for an AR-15. Accurate, with a fairly high rate of fire, but with no stopping power. Shoot a large man with it and if it isnt in the head he will keep on coming.
So let me get this straight, a 556 round, has the same kinetic energy than a 22 lr? is that what you're saying?
There's one guy saying "assault" can be used for anything, so it shouldn't be used, but your logic takes the cake, it shouldn't be used because it's just a toy, therefore it doesn't even qualify as "assault", boy the US military sure is brave by sending all their forces with a toy gun to conflicts all this time.
You guys getting all your panties on fire by the use of the term "assault" is very funny, it's just a word, the meaning could be very fitting, you're being played by propaganda just as leftist sheep do, only in reverse, you just don't realize it.
In a lot of states it is illegal to hunt deer with the 5.56 because it lacks the knock down power to cleanly kill.
When the military was transitioning from the 7.62 to the 5.56 extensive studies concluded, in rounds per killed the 7.62 was far superior.
The 5.56 was chosen in part because of its ability to wound not kill. Requiring manpower to remove the wounded from the field, care for the wounded, the economic cost to provide for the wounded and the moral lost of the society while looking at the wounded.
You've been a member for a while, and have points on the board, I'll assume you are just ignorant on the subject, I suggest you study some more.
The US military doesnt use AR-15s lol.