Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. 😱
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

Practice what Richard says.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

Poquito Loco wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

Practice what Richard says.

You sure seem to enjoy telling others what to do. Does anyone pay you the
attention you think you deserve and so obviously want?

Besides once you have seen a real P51 fly, a toy is just...a toy.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 22 Jan 2015 22:30:55 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

Practice what Richard says.

You sure seem to enjoy telling others what to do. Does anyone pay you the
attention you think you deserve and so obviously want?

Besides once you have seen a real P51 fly, a toy is just...a toy.

You could practice what Richard says.

--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

Indeed, sensitivity is nice. Try it sometime.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 6:05 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:30:55 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

Practice what Richard says.

You sure seem to enjoy telling others what to do. Does anyone pay you the
attention you think you deserve and so obviously want?

Besides once you have seen a real P51 fly, a toy is just...a toy.

You could practice what Richard says.


That's better. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very, very nice, John. Thanks for posting that. That's one hell of a lot of work and a lot of cool technology that just wasn't available only a handful of years ago.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

The M16 is simply a military version of an AR15. The AR15 was designed to be, and is, a "military" rifle. Besides, it is entirely plausible, if not likely, that his rifle never even saw active battle use. It was most likely a training rifle that lived its life in an armory until being released for sale to the public.

My conjecture is as valid as yours. :)

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 7:15 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in
wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the
AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the
primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a
few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher
ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military
designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

How would you describe yours? A clone, copy, lookalike, facsimile,
knockoff, Kit bashed piece of ****e? The latter is probably most
apropos, dontcha think? Aren't you a little old to be playing Rambo?


--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.



Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the
less expensive ARs... :) The one I have typically is not discounted
much. It's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU

I got rid of the front sight post and shaved down the gas block, among
other mods.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences.. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.



Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the
less expensive ARs... :) The one I have typically is not discounted
much. It's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/15 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.



Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the
less expensive ARs... :) The one I have typically is not discounted
much. It's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Colt uses different stamps from time to time for various reasons. That
stamp was the result of the national regs on AR rifles that expired.
Mine doesn't say that.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:38:50 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.



Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the
less expensive ARs... :) The one I have typically is not discounted
much. It's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Colt uses different stamps from time to time for various reasons. That
stamp was the result of the national regs on AR rifles that expired.
Mine doesn't say that.

Exact same rifle, exact same specs. Military rifle. Just without the stamp.

Mine doesn't have that stamp either, but is made to the exact same specs as that one and yours. That's why it allows swapping of components.

Unless you invest in a billet or composite lower, there's virtually no difference, except the name *stamped* on it.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

I am surprised you would say something like that since your favorite
gun these days is basically an M-16/AR-15 that killed so many of those
Vietnamese you worry about so much ... and all those kids at Sandy
Hook.the theater in Aurora and the DC sniper.

Just a bit of fun using john's words
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:17:38 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.

===

And cereal killers.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 5:18 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. 😱


Awesome, thanks for sharing....

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.


What's it matter... so harry has a toy that wasn't up to military use?
Probably why he's so jealous.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:26:12 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 8:17 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.



Nah...the news reports I've seen indicate the mass murderers go for the
less expensive ARs... :) The one I have typically is not discounted
much. It's this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sj6X8HtwejU

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Harrytales...geeze...

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 10:22 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:38:48 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Colt uses different stamps from time to time for various reasons. That
stamp was the result of the national regs on AR rifles that expired.
Mine doesn't say that.


You have a loophole gun that is basically illegal in your state in
virtually any other configuration.
Simply dropping in a slightly heavier barrel lets it slip through a
crack in the law. I am sure there are plenty of people in Annapolis
who want to plug that hole.


Does sound like a pretty cool imaginary gun... :)

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:34:46 -0500, KC wrote:

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Harrytales...geeze...

===

It's all he's got.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would not
find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto rifle.


Other than the trigger setup and the select fire switch, is almost the
same. Different bolt and bolt face. But is very close.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

==
How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the
AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the
primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a
few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks
of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it
replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

The M16 is simply a military version of an AR15. The AR15 was designed
to be, and is, a "military" rifle. Besides, it is entirely plausible, if
not likely, that his rifle never even saw active battle use. It was most
likely a training rifle that lived its life in an armory until being
released for sale to the public.

My conjecture is as valid as yours. :)

M16 saw lots of battle use.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/22/2015 10:34 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:17:38 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article , says...

On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term
in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would
not find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto
rifle.

It's a big favorite of mass murderers.

===

And cereal killers.

Harry is addicted to the snap crackle and pop sounds of his, modified
for the handicap, guns.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:38:48 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows
the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns
out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Colt uses different stamps from time to time for various reasons. That
stamp was the result of the national regs on AR rifles that expired.
Mine doesn't say that.


You have a loophole gun that is basically illegal in your state in
virtually any other configuration.
Simply dropping in a slightly heavier barrel lets it slip through a
crack in the law. I am sure there are plenty of people in Annapolis
who want to plug that hole.

We do have some odd firearms regs here. You can buy an AR-10, no problemo.
Or an HBR AR-15. Or build an HBR AR-15. But no pencil barrel AR-15s.
Luckily, the HBR Colt was the one I wanted...it is more accurate.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/15 6:01 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:38:48 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Really? Just like it? The very beginning of the video clearly shows
the lower being stamped "Restricted for military... use only". Turns
out you have a military rifle after all. :)


Colt uses different stamps from time to time for various reasons. That
stamp was the result of the national regs on AR rifles that expired.
Mine doesn't say that.


You have a loophole gun that is basically illegal in your state in
virtually any other configuration.
Simply dropping in a slightly heavier barrel lets it slip through a
crack in the law. I am sure there are plenty of people in Annapolis
who want to plug that hole.

We do have some odd firearms regs here. You can buy an AR-10, no problemo.
Or an HBR AR-15. Or build an HBR AR-15. But no pencil barrel AR-15s.
Luckily, the HBR Colt was the one I wanted...it is more accurate.


Oh, the "heavy barrel" is about a pound heavier, and that's more than
"slightly" heavier for a 16" barrel. No sliced out area for the grenade
launcher, either, dammit. :)



--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/15 2:35 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 7:33 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15.
The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary
infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years
later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the
Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced
the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.


Very little difference except for the select fire. And I do not think the
modern M4 can fire full automatic. I think the auto part is 3 round burst.



There's quite a bit of difference. Obtaining the necessary parts and
converting an AR to full auto will make you eligible for a serious term in the slammer.

The M4A1 is full auto.

My AR has been customized some, with "accessories" you probably would not
find on military issue rifles, but it is still a civilian semi-auto rifle.


Other than the trigger setup and the select fire switch, is almost the
same. Different bolt and bolt face. But is very close.


Same bolt on the Colt 6721, the model I have. Also, mine now has a
free-floated barrel...the stock military Colts do not, and a low-pro gas
block, and some ambi features and a different stock, 12" fore-end,
trigger, iron sights, et cetera. Unfortunately, a silencer for these
rifles is about a grand...yikes! :(

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:15:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

In a year in Vietnam, I fired my M-16 on automatic one time - at beer cans. The rest was always
semi-auto. To suggest your weapons isn't military because it won't fire on automatic is pure
horse****.

Our Mosin Nagants won't fire on automatic either, but you find their discussion divisive and
offensive.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/15 7:57 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 19:15:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

In a year in Vietnam, I fired my M-16 on automatic one time - at beer cans. The rest was always
semi-auto. To suggest your weapons isn't military because it won't fire on automatic is pure
horse****.

Our Mosin Nagants won't fire on automatic either, but you find their discussion divisive and
offensive.


You missed the irony, I would guess. It was a put-on, aimed at the
leading hobbyist in rec.boats. :)

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:04:32 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/22/2015 7:15 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in
wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the
AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the
primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a
few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher
ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military
designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

How would you describe yours? A clone, copy, lookalike, facsimile,
knockoff, Kit bashed piece of ****e? The latter is probably most
apropos, dontcha think? Aren't you a little old to be playing Rambo?

'Playing' is the key word.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 23 Jan 2015 03:17:34 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

I am surprised you would say something like that since your favorite
gun these days is basically an M-16/AR-15 that killed so many of those
Vietnamese you worry about so much ... and all those kids at Sandy
Hook.the theater in Aurora and the DC sniper.

Just a bit of fun using john's words

Which of those words were mine, Krause. Richard will get you for 'putting words in the mouths of
others' again.
--

Guns don't cause problems. The behavior
of certain gun owners causes problems.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/15 8:00 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:04:32 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 1/22/2015 7:15 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 6:44 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:05:08 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 1/22/15 5:56 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in
wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

===

How does that jibe with your ownership and glowing descriptions of an
AR-15?

Your new found sensitivity is touching BTW.


I don't own an M16.

"The AR-15 was designed to fit this exploration into a smaller caliber
around 1958, which led to the development of the 5.56x45, commercially
known as the .223Rem. ArmaLite sold the rights of the two designs to
Colt in 1959. The USAF and US Army began seriously looking at the
AR-15. The USAF adopted it shortly thereafter and it was made the
primary infantry weapon for all of the branches of the US military a
few years later in 1967, despite resistance by some in the higher
ranks of the Army and USMC. Dubbed, the "M16" (US Military
designation), it replaced the M14 and M1 Carbine."

Your distinction is quite a bit more than dubious.



The M16s the military issues can be fired on full automatic. My civilian
AR-15 was built in 2014 and cannot be fired on full automatic.
It is not the rifle the military issues. There are other differences. I
don't own a military rifle.

How would you describe yours? A clone, copy, lookalike, facsimile,
knockoff, Kit bashed piece of ****e? The latter is probably most
apropos, dontcha think? Aren't you a little old to be playing Rambo?

'Playing' is the key word.


Sly and I are almost the same age, and both of us are younger than you,
Johnny, and neither of us are interested in playing "Russian soldier."

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/15 8:01 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On 23 Jan 2015 03:17:34 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On 22 Jan 2015 22:18:45 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

Poquito Loco wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...-ts=1421828030

Frankly, John, I find your touting of firearms actually used in wars and
toys depicting actual military airplanes divisive and offensive. ?

I am surprised you would say something like that since your favorite
gun these days is basically an M-16/AR-15 that killed so many of those
Vietnamese you worry about so much ... and all those kids at Sandy
Hook.the theater in Aurora and the DC sniper.

Just a bit of fun using john's words

Which of those words were mine, Krause. Richard will get you for 'putting words in the mouths of
others' again.


Your touting of Russki firearms, of course, and your admiration for toy
warplanes. Those words. Got it?

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

Very nice P51 RC aircraft
 

On 1/23/2015 8:05 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
" Frankly, John, I find you divisive and offensive. ?"
Krauseberg, these are your exact words. Edited for brevity of course.
Don't you think you owe John an apology? ;-)

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."