Gunsplaining to conservatives

[Straw Man]

35. Erroneous much?

The M1 carbine round, as you know, was not the full size rifle round, more akin to the shorts developed by the Germans and Russians for their assault rifles, and for the same reason, to make a weapon that was easier to fire, and easier to fire rapidly.

Correct. But your reference was to a ".30 caliber rifle," with no further clarification like ".30-06" or ".308". Now you want to get specific. OK, go ahead: List your offending calibers and tell us what you want to do about them.

Take Adam Lanza, skinny, bed room abiding, muscle tone of a ghost - reportedly put @ 10 bullets into each of his tiny victims, shooting them to pieces. Couldn't have done it with any .308, would've taken his arm off.

Taken his arm off? Hyperbole is not your friend. Bruised his shoulder and sprayed a lot of bullets around wildly, yes. In any case, we weren't talking about Lanza. We were talking about Stephen Paddock, who appeared to be of average size and strength. So you want to define "assault rifle" as "a semi-auto that skinny people can use"? How is that definition supposed to be useful?

When the U.S. created a weapon capable of full auto for the 30.06 round, to be hand carried, the result was the BAR, weighing in at over 21 lbs.

Yes -- in 1917. By 1959 the US had created the M14, which weighed half that and fired a comparable round: .308 NATO. And did you not see the video of the .308 50-round mag dump that I posted? No controllability issue for an adult of average strength.

It's only with the development of rounds for assault rifles, that any kid can have a weapon capable of such mass murder.

And again I have to ask: Is your point to define "assault rifle" as "a semi-auto rifle that kids can use"? Why? What possible purpose does that serve?