A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Assault weapons are commonly equipped with some or all of the following
combat features:

Let's debunk this:

First, the term "assault weapon" was coined by the press to describe
semi-automatic long-guns that were visually similar to military BATTLE
RIFLES or ASSAULT RIFLES.

Modern military battle rifles and assault rifles are select-fire,
shoulder-fired firearms that can fire semi-automatically or
fully-automatically.


A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously
fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually
equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

This is true.


A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for
concealability and for mobility in close combat.

The "concealability" statement is empty rhetoric. No non-class III rifle
legal in the US is less than 26 inches from end to end when in an operable
configuration. Hardly "concealable." This is why, contrary to anti-gunner
rhetoric, "assault weapons" are not the "weapons of choice" for drug
dealers. In fact, rifles of any sort are very rarely used by criminals of
any ilk.

As for mobility in close combat, this is true. It's also true that folding
or collapsible stocks are useful for storage and when carrying the firearm.


A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon.

"Spray-fire" is a rhetorical nullity, and the claim that a pistol grip
"facilitates" firing from the hip ignores fundamental human mechanics. It's
far easier to fire a Garand or a hunting rifle from the hip than to fire an
AR-15 from the hip.


A pistol grip also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire

Not just rapid fire, but at all times. Nothing wrong with stabilizing the
firearm, it makes it easier to hit the target and gives the shooter better
control over the point of impact, which make it safer.

and makes it easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

Blatant hogwash and tripe! Only the Terminator can shoot a major-caliber
rifle with one hand and expect to even come close to hitting anything by
design.


A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating.

Yes, so what? A "barrel shroud" is nothing more than a different sort of
stock, the purpose of which in any long gun is to provide a grip for
accuracy and protection from burns, which, contrary to this hogwash, can
occur after firing just a few rounds.

It also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

Or during any other sort of fire. Stabilizing the weapon is of primary
importance, and anything that facilitates it is good.


A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves
no useful sporting purpose.

Except, of course, suppressing flash. Hunters and sportsmen do shoot
recreationally during low-light periods.

The flash suppressor allows the shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night,

Complete bull****. A flash suppressor does absolutely NOTHING to reduce the
flash signature from IN FRONT of the firearm. It's purpose is to reduce the
flash visible to the shooter, to prevent blinding during low-light shooting.

an advantage in combat but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes.

Whether it is "necessary" is not up to this twit to decide.

In addition, the flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

Wrong. A "muzzle brake" performs that function, not a flash suppressor,
although devices may be designed to provide both functions. Once again,
maintaining control is a good thing.


A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer,

Er, no, actually, they are threaded to accommodate a flash suppressor or
muzzle brake. That one can thread other objects on the same threads is not
the same thing.

which is useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen.

Now here is a complete anti-gun biased falsehood. Silencers have plenty of
utility for sportsmen. The major utility is that it reduces the muzzle
report, which reduces or eliminates the need for hearing protection. Sound
reduction is also useful in eliminating noise pollution and annoyance to
neighbors. They are also used frequently when shooting varmints and vermin
to avoid scaring them off with the muzzle report.

Silencers are illegal

Another blatant lie. Silencers are perfectly legal in the US. Anyone who is
otherwise qualified to possess a firearm can own one. All you have to do is
file the tax paperwork with the BATFE and pay the $200 tax and you can have
one.

so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a
weapon.

Untrue editorialism. As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate reasons
why a person would want a silencer and a barrel threaded to accept it.


A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no
sporting purpose.

Well, unless you get too close to a bear, where it might have some utility.
Still, it's a harmless feature. And I do mean harmless. I defy this twit to
provide a single example of a civilian crime committed with an "assault
weapon" with a fixed bayonet.
It's a cosmetic item that poses no danger to the public, but might be useful
if the particular arm had to be used by the militia or the military in close
combat.

====

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...that a crack dealer can arm
his posse with assault weapons with a trip to the gun shack on the corner
and spray the local park with semi-automatic (or perhaps converted to
automatic) gunfire.

Ignoring for the moment that this almost never happens, he can only "arm his
posse" illegally, not from the local "gun shack," which is tightly regulated
by the BATFE, and only if he can pass the background check, at which point
the idea is that other law-abiding citizens will be similarly armed and able
to take out the crack dealer before any harm is done.

Yep, that's an important freedom to protect.

The important freedom to protect is MY right to have an assault weapon that
I can use at need to kill the deranged crack dealer and his posse if and
when he decides to shoot up the local park. That, and my right to have an
assault weapon so I can defend the Constitution and my fellow citizens
against tyranny.

In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.

Wrong. AK-47's are fully-automatic battle rifles that are not available to
the general public.

So much for this line of crap.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
================
Besides, WMDs were not the only, nor even the most persuasive reason
for
invading Iraq. If you don't know the other compelling reasons that
fully
justified the invasion, it's because you're being willfully ignorant.
================

Or, because we choose to ignore Faux News where they've conveniently
re-written history for the Bush propaganda machine. Those of you who
have sipped from the Kool-Aid chalice now parrot this revisionist stuff
like some kind of mantra.

Hey, don't blame us because you weren't paying attention.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Well, some of them were used on the Kurds in the late eighties,

Which were outside the time frame for which the yanks were able
to claim there was a problem with WMDs. The latter only apply
post 1991.

Sez who?


and I imagine the rest of them are in Syria or are buried in
the desert somewhere. After all, he had 12 years to conceal them.

Why would he hide them instead of using them to defend himself?

He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found. They were not used because the
artillery commanders refused to fire them, knowing that if they did, they
risked nuclear conflict.

The
obvious nonsense in your claim is that Saddam would rather live in a
spider hole than fight back.

You misunderstand the command and control systems in Iraq. Saddam suffered
the typical fate of dictators. As soon as things began to go badly for him,
and his commanders and soldiers saw a probability that the US would prevail,
and that Saddam would be driven into hiding, his commanders and his troops
abandoned him, stripped off their uniforms, dumped their personal arms and
surrendered gladly to US troops.

He didn't fight back effectively because no dictator can who rules by terror
and intimidation when a liberator with a real chance appears.

They didn't exist

They existed. He created them. He used them. He refused to permit unfettered
inspections and engaged in shell-game moving about of them, and he likely
removed them to Syria, along with billions in gold and cash, before the
invasion.

- he was just an
asshole that was tried to pretend they existed to impress the
arabs he was trying to influence.

Then he made a terrible mistake, didn't he.

The US played to this,

We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time. Hindsight
is always 20/20.

just as
they are jumping on the bandwagon to play to N. Korea's every
claim about nuclear weapons.

Are you suggesting that we should NOT take North Korea's claim to have
nuclear weapons seriously? How....idiotic of you.

It is in the interests of a war
monger to make sure that there is always an enemy.

We don't have to manufacture enemies, there are plenty of real ones out
there, and the only reason YOU get to spout your crap is because the US has
for decades maintained the balance of power and peace around the world.


I imagine we'll find them eventually.

Not likely, since America's given up looking.

For now. We've got other things to do.

But then, you've never
let facts interfere with your opinions.

You, on the other hand, wouldn't know a fact if it were shoved up your ass.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill
only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're
willing to die in the process)

If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to
soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier,
you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man?
Yeah, right.

Hey, one kill per ten fat men would do the trick.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:



Michael Daly wrote:

On 19-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


if even 50 million fat men with guns manage to kill
only one soldier apiece (not difficult at all, particularly if you're
willing to die in the process)


If you had the slightest notion of the ratio of rounds fired to
soldiers killed amoung trained armies, or of kills per soldier,
you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. One kill per fat man?
Yeah, right.

Reminds me of the Japanese: they did have trained soldiers, and their
aim was to take out more than one Allied soldier for every one of their
own who bit the dust. Although many people will be familiar with
kamikaze, the average Japanese soldier also got suicide weapons, for
example to sit in a pit with a special mine waiting for a tank to drive
over him, or to run at a tank with special pole-mounted antitank
explosives. That mentality didn't do them much good against overwhelming
firepower...

If there was such a thing as organised resistance against the U.S.
government, the only chance would be to use terrorist and guerilla
tactics,

Precisely.

and with the widespread terrorisation of the population through
the ever tightening grip of the government on society, I don't see that
happening.

That's because you're a brain-washed peon who couldn't fight back if you
wanted to.


Of course, there just aren't enough fat men with arms to take on a
professional army,

Wanna bet?

and there's not a snowball's chance in hell to have
50 million of them stand up and fight their own troops.

Are you willing to bet YOUR life on it?

That would be
probably every ablebodied man between age 18 and 40 in the continental
U.S., and we're not talking about ablebodied men, are we? :-)

Presuming that the majority of the militia would obey the orders of a
tyrant, which they wouldn't.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
He did. Evidence of Sarin was found on the battlefield, and numerous
Sarin-filled artillery shells were found.

Where is your source for this?

--riverman

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick says:
=============
Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the
US.
================

Again, I prefer to look at more meaningful statistics. Let's
look at
life expectancies. Out of 8 countries (USA, UK, Canada,
Germany,
Mexico, France, Italy, and Japan) the USA ranks 7th in both men
and
women's life expectancies. The USA does fare better than Mexico
on this
measure, however. Since you're comparing, Canada ranks 4th
among these
nations for women and 2nd place for men.
======================
Again, the response was in reply to his claim that the poor in
the US are not getting any meaningful care.
Like wilko, you snip out the entire post to try to make it say
something that was not being said. The response you have taken
as a stand alone statement without context, by dishonestly
snipping out the parts you don't like, was solely about his
remark the 'poor' people are not taken care of. The reply I gave
was perfectly appropriate to his claim as it compared the
so-called disadvantaged of the US to the normal Canadian. In
this instance, the normal Canadian lost, despite the jingoistic
chest thumping you and kman like to engage in.




What in hell is going on here, rick?! This is all wrong! The
conventional wisdom just screams that the USA should be at the
top of
the list. Somebody must be ****ing around with the statistics,
eh?
==================
Some where you must have snipped out the part where I claimed the
US system is best. Maybe you could restore that posts for us,
eh?



frtzw906
==========

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick says:
================
Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the
US.
=================

rick, you wanted to play a statistical game. Here's a tip, next
time,
before you try that tactic, know what the statistics say in
advance
(and don't use them if they make you out to be the fool).
====================
Before dishonestly trying to make a post say something that it
doesn't, you should annotate your snipping.



On healthcare spending: On a per capita basis (1998) USA -
$4178
Canada - $2312, Sweden - $1746...

Crissakes, rick, this can't be right!!! All that money, and the
highly
touted privatized medical system to boot, and the USA still
can't beat
Canada on any meaningful statistics like life expectancy and
infant
mortality. Playing this game with you, rick, is like Canada
playing the
USA in hockey: you lose before you've even laced up your
skates.

rick, I look forward to the next big load of health (Or
education. Or
crime. etc) statistics you want to bring up. At the risk of
mixing my
metaphors (hockey to baseball), I feel confident that I'll
blast them
out of the park as well.
=======================
I look forward to an honest post from you, ever. I have never
made any claims that the US system is the best. My reply was
about a specific claim made by kamn. I made an approriate reply
to his claim. Too bad you can't honestly reply to posts on
usenet, eh?




cheers,
frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:00 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weisr says:
===============
In the US, if your doctor is too busy to see you, you can go find one
that
isn't so busy, anywhere in the US
================

Similarly, in Canada, if my doctor is too busy, I am free to go to
another. Very often, when I have a minor OWie, I simply go to the
clinic in the nearest shopping mall and "some" doctor or another sees
to the malady.

Weiser says:
=================
It works fine until the system becomes overloaded with non-critical
cases. When that happens, people get prioritized and waitlisted, and
not infrequently die while waiting for the list
===========================

You misunderstand the process. If you are about to die, you are clearly
not a "non-critical" case. Thus you are moved to the head of the line.
People do not die waiting. People may get ****ed-off waiting for
elective procedures when emergency cases get higher priority. But,
would you have it any other way? You can't buy yourself to the front of
the line. Your medcal condition determines where you are in the line.
Seems logical and fair to me.

They die not because they are critical, they die because they *become*
critical, and unsalvagable, because they cannot obtain treatment for
illnesses that would prevent further declines in health, leading to
debilitation and/or death, because "critical" cases come first.

One anecdote I read was the heart patient awaiting surgery in England who
wrote to the Queen to beg for help because she was two years down the
surgery list. The Queen commiserated with her and suggested that if she
actually had a heart attack, she would move up on the list.

Such people suffer for years both with debility and often in pain, with
their conditions continually deteriorating until, while not critical enough
to jump the queue, they eventually succumb to irreversible medical problems
that might have been prevented, or significantly slowed if they had received
prophylactic treatment early on. But in socialized medicine, such
prophylactic treatment falls to the bottom of the waiting list, and often
doesn't happen.

Basically, the system waits till you've become critically ill to treat you,
and then you have a much higher risk of dying because the disease's course
is irreversible.


Weiser says:
===================
given a false high priority through political influence or other
forms of corruption.
=======================

Look, I'm not going to blow smoke up your ass and tell you that never
happens. It very occasionally does. And when it does, the public
outrage is palpable.

As it should be. Then again, it's a matter of being hoist on your own
petard. You folks created the socialized medicine system and you accepted it
because you think you shouldn't have to pay for your own medical care...that
someone else (everyone else) should be responsible for your illnesses, so
you suffer the consequences, which is fine by me.

Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada who died
waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking, you should be
able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are talking about, why
not just admit that?

Because the faults of socialized medicine are well known, the complaints
many, and the impacts well documented.

That would be a NO then. That's what I figured.

By the way, why does the USA have socialized education?

My point is that down here in the US, we believe in personal responsibility.
Your medical problems are your medical problems and are not the problem of
taxpayers. Does that mean that poor people may die because they cannot
afford emergency treatment? Sometimes, but not often, because our federal
government subsidizes (there's that nasty word again) hospitals to provide
emergency medical care to the indigent and poor.

Why do you do that? I thought you believe in "personal responsibility" and
"personal responsibility" means that if you don't have enough money to pay
for medical care, then you should die.

That's not what I said. The difference between the US system and socialized
medicine is that under socialized medicine, the government runs the
operation and dictates who gets what care when and at what cost. In the US
system, the government lets private industry run the show, but provides some
financial support for the care of the indigent. The government does NOT
ration, control, schedule, organize or otherwise dictate to consumers who,
when or how they get treatment. Big difference. Enormous.

Agreed.


I also wonder why you have public schools, that doesn't seem to fit with
your definition of personal responsibility either.

I happen to agree. I think public schools are a big waste of money, and that
people should seek out and pay for private school education for their
children. However, given the fact that there are many people who cannot
afford private school education, it is appropriate for local government (the
"local" part is significant) to provide free public basic education, funded
with taxes approved and collected from the local citizenry.

So is it your view that health care is less important than education?

I utterly disagree with the federal government (or even the state
government) getting involved in controlling public education. It is
acceptable, however, for the federal and state government to supply funds to
local schools...if they have no control over the use of the funds or control
over teaching.

Likewise, if the federal or state government wants to make grants from tax
money to local hospitals to help defray the costs of treating the indigent,
that's acceptable because the government is not exercising control over the
providing of health care.

So the fact that local government administer socialized healthcare instead
of federal or state makes it OK?

My goodness, that's
billions and billions of dollars going to subsidize poor families who can't
take responsibility for sending their kids to private schools.

As well they should. Getting a better job so you can afford to send your
kids to school is a great motivator.

Ah. So your theory is that those without enough money to send their kids to
private schools are deliberately staying poor because they have access to
public schools. Interesting!

And for those who don't care to educate
their children, well, *somebody* needs to pick up trash and dig ditches, so
I guess those lazy parents will be raising the next generation of
grunt-laborers. If I were one of their kids, I'd sue my parents for failing
to properly provide for my education.

Besides, public education is entirely different from health care. The costs
of public education are easily calculable and controllable, and each student
receives the same education as every other, so there aren't a lot of
individual variables that make prioritization necessary.

Each student receives the same education as any other? Wow. You might want
to take a tour of different public schools around the country.

All kids progress
through the system at the same speed (with some exceptions) and only a few
have "special needs" that have to be dealt with.

You might want to find out more about that.

This is unlike medicine,
where each person has a completely different complaint and requires
individual treatment. Not only that, but a failure in the education system
merely leaves a child less well educated than another child, while failure
in the medical system can kill people.

Right. Medical care is essential. Which is why linking medical care to
economics is so scary and backwards.

Thus, your analogy is completely inapplicable from the get-go.

?

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself rick wrote:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 3:14 PM:


snippage..


Can you post one verifiable reference to a patient in Canada
who died
waiting? Good luck finding one. But the way you are talking,
you should be
able to find hundreds! You really don't know what you are
talking about, why
not just admit that?
===========
Nice little set-up. You know that hospitals cannot release
patirnt info, like names, especially they won't when the
system
would look bad anyway. So you know that your demand for real
names probably will be hard to find. Yet, many groups and
angencies, in Canada, claim that these deaths do occur.
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html
http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf



Places like Canada are the ones that are promoting the
differences between the haves and the have-nots.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html

tell me a 2 1/2 year wait if the boy does have cancer won't
effect the outcome of his life, and that if the family HAS the
money, they won't get one privately in Canada or the states.



snip...



Thanks for doing the homework.
===============
It's not hard. many canadians are far from satisfied with their
health care, and many studies have been made and are being made.
It's funny that these guys all protest that anyone stands up for
the US, but then spew their own jingoistic chest thumping.



--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser