For as long as they keep the pic up, here's the rifle.
Posted on 12/07/2007 6:03:10 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
I guess my Model 1911 .45 pistol is also in need of banning, you libtards? After all, it was initially designed for the military.../dripping sarcasm
I realize it did not. My point is that anti-gun forces say that it did, yet they also say that we’re not “allowed” to have militia weapons.
They want it both ways.
Semi-automatics are NOT military weapons. Stupid liberals can’t seem to differentiate between a semi and and automatic. The latter has been banned in the civilian market in this country since 1934.
For what it's worth, I knew one of the women who was killed. Had Thanksgiving dinner with her last year. This is utter insanity. If Omaha, Nebraska isn't safe, no place is.
It WAS an SKS. And he DIDN’T switch out mags. See this thread.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1936616/posts
If one wanted to have a bunch of soldiers march into an area and capture it, a musket was a far superior weapon to a rifle. While a musket could not be aimed accurately at an individual target the way a rifle could, a row of muskets firing simultaneously could do great damage to anything or anyone in front of it.
The problem for the British was that even though their soldiers could go anywhere they wanted, and the colonists didn't have the power to stop them, such ability wasn't of sufficient military use to justify the cost. If the British had simply sought to drive out the colonists from anyplace they captured, they could probably have cleared out the colonies so that new people could move in; the colonists' rifles would not have been able to stop that. On the other hand, the British were trying to put down a rebellion without displacing loyal subjects. That was a much greater challenge, and one the British could not meet.
Steve Zweig
North Side HS ‘67”
It is always nice to have a little personal insight into the opposition.
Please tell us more, or if you do not feel comfortable with a post to all, a private post would be appreciated.
If you revisit that thread, you'll see they are now saying it was an AK-47. (Meaning of course an AK-47 semi-auto clone)
No, I was going by the configuration of the front sight and the profile of the gas tube and receiver.
For as long as they keep the pic up, here's the rifle.
I'm not away of any military in the world that issues semiautomatic versions of select fire intermediate power weapons. They issue the select fire versions. They may *use* them in semiautomatic mode, but they issue the select fire weapons.
Not to mention that he could have done just as much damage with a Mini-30, firing the same cartridge, or for that matter, a 30-30 lever action rifle, although it would have taken him a minuscule and unimportant in the situation amount of time to reload.
Semi-autos are OK for that, but bolt actions firing a full power cartridge are really better. Especially inexpensive mil surplus throw aways. Although in some scenarios one of these, or it's bolt action cousins, would be just the thing for tyrannicide.
That takes coordination, it was done by commands, relayed from the officers through the "sergeants". So the riflemen would pick off the officers and the sergeants while still out of musket range, turning the precise formations into a disorganized mob, which would either retreat or be picked off in turn. The only real advantage the musket had was rate of fire. Until the invention of the Mine ball that is. Even then it took lots of dead troops, even as late as the Civil War, for the Powers That Be to figure out that musket tactics weren't going to cut it anymore. Similar effect occurred with the invention of the Machine Gun.
The sight appears too tall for an SKS, and the gas tube and receiver profiles are very AK like to my eye. Looks like it might even have a vertical foregrip by the position of his left hand.
***If one wanted to have a bunch of soldiers march into an area and capture it, a musket was a far superior weapon to a rifle***
True, only because the rifle was slower to load and did not have a bayonet. The Brown Bess was idiot proof but you still could not hit a person at 100 yards if you aimed at him. That is why British soldiers were NOT taught to aim, but just to point and shoot.
The rifle won the battle of King’s Mountain.
The British officers were very afraid of the Rifle as the colonists had a nasty habit of picking off officers. One officer wrote home that any officers going to fight in the colonies should make a will as he would probably end up shot.
If only there had been a law against stealing, this bloodshed might have been avoided.
Yeah, I don’t know what that is exactly. I’m guessing you’re right about the stock photo - that doesn’t look much like it. Somebody in the property room knows, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.