Check my work - assault weapons presentation

[HoneyBadger]

Sooooo... check it out: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

[Gman]

Sooooo... check it out: http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Nice. Thanks!

[wreave]

Wow.

I still like my side-by-sides, which illustrate the idiocy of the evil feature ban, but this is a far better presentation than mine. Thanks.

[osok-308]

The quiz was the most effective part. (thanks for attacking my mosin asshole ) Just a few thoughts though:
1. The AWB of 1994 had its sunset in 2004, and the VA Tech shooting occurred in 2007 (I remember, because I was in college at the time). If an anti-gunner saw that, they might jump on the rest and say that the whole thing is false. Maybe point out that the firearms used would have been available during the AWB.
2. I would point out that the term "Assault Weapon" is intentionally vague. Fast forward fifteen years and home defense shotguns, revolvers, even baseball bats could be considered "assault weapons" because you can hurt somebody with them.
3. Point out to those who don't believe that the second amendment grants the individual right to bear arms, that the use of the word "people" in the first amendment is in the same context as in the second. A lot of people would be pissed if the first amendment didn't give the individual freedom of speech.
4. Mention that with the banning of bayonet lugs as an "evil feature" how there is a lack of bayoneting instances (which furthers the point of the arbitrary ridiculousness of the whole ban).

[ChadAmberg]

Put in a note about how the AR in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle at all.

[Danimal]

The problem is that the libtard/fuckwits/socialists don't want to ban your "assault rifle". They, and the general public, don't give a shit as to what constitutes an actual assault rifle, they don't care about semantics or full auto, semi auto or select fire. The reality is that they want to ban all firearms and will start with firearms that are easily identifiable and that they can make a case to the general public that has some logic behind it. The case they make is that "assault rifles" are designed for anti-personal purposes, and most people don't really understand why "we" think we need them, same thing with magazine capacity.

So when we start debating the semantics and the definition of an "assault weapon" we have walked into their trap. No one cares what an actual assault rifle is, none of my non-shooting friends could give a fuck, they know the libs are out to ban military "style" weapons. We need to debate the validity of personal defense with any weapon, the realities of mag capacity as it relates to defense.

This is the bare bones truth. Once we are cornered into arguing semantics with the gun grabbers we have already lost. The best way to convince them is to take them shooting. Take them out for some fun if they are willing to go with you. The problem is that the information is out there if they really cared to look for it. Yes I agree we need to send as clear of a message as possible and have it easy yo find in as many places as possible, but that is not what is going to win the fight because those who do not understand need to want to seek out the information that is counter to the spoon fed liberal indoctrination that they have been raised on.