A little perspective on the chance that you will be a victim

Indeed it has not. Nothing has been shown on the part of yourself, except for a complete aversion to actually answering questions that are presented to yourself.

You have made the claim as to such being false, but you have not actually shown anything of substance. Nothing has been presented but your word alone, and your word is proof of nothing but what is thought by yourself.

 

Of course it has.

That you don’t understand, or agree doesn’t really change anything.

 

Nothing but your word, and your word alone, has ever been presented by yourself in this matter, and that is wholly insufficient as there has not been so much as even a single citation or reference link provided to demonstrate the validity of the claims being presented by yourself. Either contribute something of actual substance, or stop wasting the time of others by presenting inane self-important drivel.

 

You of course know this is a lie.

 

your major fail is claiming (depending on what day it is) that at a certain rate of fire or full auto operation, a hand held firearm becomes too dangerous for citizens to own. You are never able to explain at what point that rate it is and why say 300 RPM is acceptable but 350 is not

 

Yet another claim that cannot be substantiated by yourself, and indeed has not been substantiated by yourself.

 

Such is nothing but psychological derangement.

 

To view and judge GW under the standards of morality of today minimized both the magnitude of the moral struggle and the barriers to the ingrained cultural beliefs of the time. Declaring independence and fighting a war for that independence from King’s rule at the risk of death was not only daunting, but a radical undertaking, one challenging nearly universal belief among the world’s population and one earth shaking in redefining morality. They not only were successful, but changed thinking on governance that ultimately swept the world...a revolution still progressing and still challenging those that would undermine the the propositions they came to advocate and that ultimately redifined moral thinking regarding slavery itself, something still relevant today, considering slavery still exists in many forms.
The thinking behind the 2A at the time, aside from recognizing the right of self defence and sustanence for those living along and expanding into a huge frontier, but also was to create checks against government authority and tyranny where power could be used to subvert liberty, a threat that still exists (slavery still exists at gun point). I maintain, anyone opposing the rights recognized by the Constitution and that seek to undermine it’s principles without going through the mechanisms prescribed (the amendment process) ultimately advocate creating the potential where slavery can again occur and be justified in in larger scope. Such is the risk. Those not among the elite priesthood of the LW don’t recognize the potential that their narratives might have the unintended consequence of removing the protection of civil liberties they enjoy. Does anyone think that the average person in Russia in 1918 realized their fate under a communist rule? Or, that Robespierre would have figured his death at the hands of the Mob when one tyranny replaced another.
I find it interesting that history gets rewritten to support the agendas and narratives being advanced by the LW today.

A few questions,
1) Should Washington have become a criminal to free his slaves prior to doing so in his will and why? And, is he to be vilified these days along with other FFs because he didn’t?
2) what was the purpose for the compromise on the slaver issue during the drafting of the Constitution?
3) what were the provisions advanced to end slavery prior to 1800?
4) would slavery have been abolished without the FF’s establishing a new republic using the Constitution as a framework for Governance?
5) What would you change of the Constitution?

 

Full auto is inherently more dangerous that it’s semi auto counterpart.

 

Which of course you know is a lie.

 

No, it’s demonstrable fact

 

False.

Then actually go about proving that such is indeed known.

 

No, it's a delusion. Firearms are inanimate objects.

 

So are many restricted things

 

None of which pose an inherent danger to anyone unless they are used in a deliberate manner for such a purpose.

 

A fact like a auto sear controling ROF?

 

True

Already have

 

True. And some objects are more dangerous than others. Full autos are inherently more dangerous than their semi auto counter part.

 

No auto sear, no auto fire.

 

And pray tell exactly where was it proven by yourself, that there is a deliberate, willful, and even intentional exercise of intellectual dishonesty being engaged in by myself?

 

Thank you.

 

None of which controls how many rounds of ammunition are discharged within the span of one minute of time.

 

Stop pretending. It was amusing for a while, now it’s just annoying.

 

Lol, no auto sear, no full auto.

 

Wrong.
There is a sear in a Sten, not an auto sear but a simple sear that works the same in auto or semi mode. The function of the sear is to arrest the forward movement of the bolt. It stops the gun from firing when engaged, and allows the bolt to move forward in semi auto mode or initiating firing of the gun. When the selector is activated to full auto mode it moves the trigger bar to prevent the sear from being engaged (period) and during full auto, it is in a sense, entirely deactivated, having nothing to do with the full auto firing sequence until the trigger is released allowing the trigger to move from disengaging the sear, allowing it to block the forward movement of the bolt. So, it therefore has nothing to do with controling the ROF. In the Sten, not unlike the slamfire zip guns we used to make when I was young, the bolt has a firing pin built into the bolt that fires when a bullet is chambered (but not locked) by the inertia of the bolt. The bolt recoils using the pressure of the gases pushing the casing back against the bolt, and in the Sten, initiates the extraction process, pushes back the bolt until, in the full auto mode, the recoil spring overcomes the rearward inertia of the bolt to begin the process again, continuing the process until the mag is empty or the bolt’s forward movement is blocked. It is a simple blowback design, one extremely simple and cheap to replicate..why it was mass produced in WWII. No autosear, no sear used at all during the full auto sequence... so, reason suggests a sear cannot control the Sten’s ROF, but something does... what? Understanding that gives clue to what controls full auto ROF of any full auto, including delayed blowback mechanisms... none of which a sear of any type controls ROF.