Grin. Not exactly, although sorta. (I grew up with single-action revolvers, which didn’t.)
“Automatic” (semi-automatic) pistols position the next round in the chamber, ready to fire.
(I know that you really knew this and were having fun with definitions.)
By the way, a friend of mine showed me a way to hang an Uzi by the shoulder strap, so it’s hanging loose and free, such that each shot fired pushes the weapon back, by recoil, against your trigger finger, producing the rough equivalent of “fully automatic” fire. You only actually “pull” the trigger once.
Then there’s the gimmicked rifle on the old TV series “The Rifleman.” He didn’t have to “pull” the trigger at all!
Well, then you get Commie terrorism and such . . . for which one is actually tempted to feel nostalgic at this point, at least the Symbionese Liberation Army had some entertainment value . . .
Just a fruit-cake with a gun … Gay Bar is an easy target … scream ISIS and all the press will broadcast his name. I swear, I’ve heard the fruit-cake’s name more often than he had victims … what is wrong with you people?
Did I mention self-fulfilling prophecy … the FBI interogated him twice badgering him if he was a terrorist … gee … I don’t know where he got the idea
No it isn’t. That’s about all we know about this guy, other than he declared allegiance to ISIS (an ideology) and bought an assault rifle with no trouble whatsoever.
Like when Timothy McVeigh blew up a building inspired by some far right nutty ideology and we all insisted on labeling it an act of radical Christian terrorism? Oh right, that never happened. Maybe you’ll have better luck with another counterfactual.
There’s a pretty simple answer. Ideologies with terrible ideas deserve condemnation, as does ISIS. Nobody’s hesitating to condemn ISIS. Your issue is apparently that you have a burning need to associate an entire religion of 1 billion people with terrorism. I couldn’t guess why, but it’s generally associated with demonizing others, feeling superior, freedom to discriminate, and starting stupid wars.
*Millions of gun owners are peaceful people who never commit any violent crime. So we should not hold all gun owners guilty by implication when one gun owner commits a crime. *
*Millions of Muslims are peaceful people who never commit any violent crime. So we should not hold all Muslims guilty by implication when one Muslim commits a crime. *
Can you explain how you feel one of the above statements is right and the other one is wrong?
