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

Your arrogance is not justified. You have "schooled" no one, but instead demonstrated an astonishing level of ignorance regarding Constitutional law, and all your claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.

 

We aren't engaged in open warfare anywhere on the planet. We are engaged in pitched battles in an urban environment.

If we were in an open warfare exchanging gun fire like we did in WWII I would agree. We aren't, and haven't been in a very long time. Which is why we don't use full auto anymore, except in very few circumstances.

 

of course it is, as I can actually support my position with case law.

sure thing sparky. All you gotta do is provide just ONE court case which contradicts anything I've schooled you on.

Good luck.

 

Your blind adherence to judicial malfeasance in direct violation of clear Constitutional intent does not enhance your credibility. Exactly the opposite, and you have "schooled" no one.

 

Yes, but the rifle, and any inherent lethality and accuracy was designed specifically for those environments.

Again, the rifle was designed according to specifications based on doctrine. At the time of the weapon's design, the doctrine called for fighting enemies, in large and small scale battles, in environments where no civilians would be on the battlefield. The weapon was designed for warfare, and was very specifically chosen over the AR-15 to have fully automatic capability. Either by design or use that weapon would be fired to win the battle the quickest way with the least casualties on our side. If full auto was the most effective way to cause the greatest number of casualties and destroy the enemy's will to fight, then doctrine would have been to fire it on full auto in battle. That was not the doctrine, which should tell anyone that full auto is not the way to cause the most casualties in the shortest amount of time.

More: Final Protective Fire is the defense action initiated in the defense when an enemy's attack has not be broken and he is prepared assault through the defensive lines of the unit. It is the last ditch effort to bring the most fire on the enemy to prevent the loss of the battle. In included both direct and indirect fires. In the Marine Rifle Squad manual, the instructions for Final Protective Fires state that "all squad members fire in their assigned sectors. Rifles and M-203s continue to fire at the average rate of fire. Even in the circumstances that call for maximum fire on the enemy, the rifleman does not fire in fully automatic, which he would if that mode of fire was most capable of causing the most damage on a plethora of targets.

 

ok. You have your opinion, I have actual case law.

I've schooled you.

 

not for urban environments. Which is why we don't use full autos anymore, except for a very small minority.

 

Repeat that lie all you want. It's still a lie.

 

lol, yet I can support it with case law, and you have random thought bouncing around in your head.

 

He is still insisting a Sten has an Auto Sear, I looked at a parts list and exploded diagram and my memory of the Sten was correct as it only has one sear and sear pin, the open bolt / ( fixed firing pin) locks back on semi auto, controlled by the selector position.

No schooling here.

 

Having fun feeding the troll?

 

He is not feeding anyone, he is just highlighting the Lies the Anti Gun advocates tell.

 

Nope. Sorry. Your "case law" violates clear Constitutional intent. You're wrong; plain and simple.

 

ok. You have your opinion, and I have case law.

 

You look silly claiming a full auto sear regulates ROF of a full auto, that a Sten has a full auto sear and that you have proven it repeatedly but refuse to produce the evidence you have.

 

He has no basis, when I had classes in the Firearms training section / lab we had many siezed firearms to study, a few Stens, parts diagrams etc...

It was very clear, just no Auto sear on a Sten.

 

He chooses to be wrong -- what does this tell you?

 

Any gun operated in an unsafe manner could indeed be dangerous to the public.

Hence, safety first.

 

yes, and a particular type of gun (full autos) are inherently more dangerous than their semi auto counterparts.

 

Then point out precisely where the proof was demonstrated by yourself, and actually prove the validity of your position, rather than merely claiming that such was already done.

 

Then either demonstrate precisely where such has been proven as being a matter of absolute fact, or recant the claim, as the mere word of yourself is not good enough.

 

Lots of things can be dangerous, kissing can be dangerous if the person you kiss, has a contagious disease.

That is why you fire guns in areas safe to do so, so there's no danger of shooting a person, if you knew about firearms, You would know and understand this.

 

Corrupt case law.

 

Bovine excrement.

 

I have no,obligation to keep re-proving you wrong