....doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

--

**Those who think they can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government
take care of them better take a closer look at the American Indian.**

On 1/27/13 1:06 PM, Salmonbait wrote:
...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait


Nothing on that list troubles me and, yes, you missed something. You
missed lots of things.

What did you use to kill women and children in Vietnam?

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

She gets around it with the "threaded barrel" language.
This is from the text of the bill

??(47) The term ?threaded barrel? means a feature or
characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow
for the attachment of a device such as a firearm silencer
or a flash suppressor.

Does she want to ban barrels that are threaded at both ends or just one
end?

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:31:35 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

She gets around it with the "threaded barrel" language.
This is from the text of the bill

‘‘(47) The term ‘threaded barrel’ means a feature or
characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow
for the attachment of a device such as a firearm silencer
or a flash suppressor.

OK, that explains it. I didn't realize the flash suppressor was screwed onto the end of the M-16
barrel, but it appears that it was.

http://www.m4store.net/images/catalog/category11.gif


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

On Jan 27, 12:31*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait

wrote:
...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7

Salmonbait

She gets around it with the "threaded barrel" language.
This is from the text of the bill

‘‘(47) The term ‘threaded barrel’ means a feature or
*characteristic that is designed in such a manner to allow
for the attachment of a device such as a firearm silencer
or a flash suppressor.

That could also limit shotguns that were designed with a 'poly-choke'
-
Because the barrel is threaded, you unscrew the 'choke' and can screw
something else back on...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...polychkopn.jpg

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:57:04 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

As usual from this gun dumb bimbo, the list is based on cosmetics,not
function. She lists the Mini 14 tactical but not the regular Mini 14,
exactly the same gun without the "tactical" stock.
The same is true of the Springfield Armory SAR-48.
It is exactly the same gun as the SOCOM (short barrel M1A) but with a
different stock.
As for your earlier observation about the flash suppressor, the M1A
gets away with it because it is not "threaded" on the barrel. (it is
part of the forward sight assembly) My mid ban model has something
that looks like a flash hider but it is not perforated. Unfortunately
on the older models and post ban models, I suppose, it still has that
evil bayonet lug.
When was the last massacre that involved a bayonet charge? Soam-Ni, in
Korea?
This woman is delusional and spent too much time near Hollywood (not
enough in Compton or Oakland where the real killing goes on).

The thing that she forgets is she has not banned "rails" and you can
screw all sorts of evil things to a rail in seconds.

I've not heard anyone praise her intelligence lately, but you could probably blame it on some
liberal staffer. Don't mention rails too loudly, they might hear. Apparently this list can be
amended.


Salmonbait

--

'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

On 1/27/13 1:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

As usual from this gun dumb bimbo

Please. She's neither dumb nor a bimbo. You're simply on different
sides. It's not like she's crazy like Wayne LaPierre.

On 1/27/2013 11:54 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:49:39 -0500, ESAD wrote:

On 1/27/13 1:57 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 13:06:51 -0500, Salmonbait
wrote:

...doesn't mention silencers or flash suppressors, or did I miss something?

http://tinyurl.com/a883sb7


Salmonbait

As usual from this gun dumb bimbo

Please. She's neither dumb nor a bimbo. You're simply on different
sides. It's not like she's crazy like Wayne LaPierre.

She doesn't seem to know much about the guns she wants to ban.

It seems that she just looked at the pictures and made the list
without even understanding what she was looking at.


I doubt that is the case at all. The bitch is smart and well funded. I
bet each and every gun was carefully chosen to nip a little further down
the "slippery slope" in some direction...

On 1/28/2013 1:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:29:07 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:



I doubt that is the case at all. The bitch is smart and well funded. I
bet each and every gun was carefully chosen to nip a little further down
the "slippery slope" in some direction...

It is just to make a big splash. The list seems to be based on
cosmetics more than function.
The effect of these things seems to be to sell more guns to people
with no particular use for them so it is definitely a failed policy.

She gets most of her money from lawyers. (over $3 million since 1998)
but we don't know who they represent. Probably more than a few work
for "ring of fire" pistol companies in California who make cheap
handguns that avoided the list.


A lot of her money comes from her husbands heavy weapons sale too...

In article ,
says...

On 1/28/2013 1:41 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:29:07 -0500, JustWaitAFrekinMinute
wrote:



I doubt that is the case at all. The bitch is smart and well funded. I
bet each and every gun was carefully chosen to nip a little further down
the "slippery slope" in some direction...

It is just to make a big splash. The list seems to be based on
cosmetics more than function.
The effect of these things seems to be to sell more guns to people
with no particular use for them so it is definitely a failed policy.

She gets most of her money from lawyers. (over $3 million since 1998)
but we don't know who they represent. Probably more than a few work
for "ring of fire" pistol companies in California who make cheap
handguns that avoided the list.


A lot of her money comes from her husbands heavy weapons sale too...

Cite?