in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch of fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic weapons, grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police probably pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police do not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's the point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in private ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea whatsoever where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in our system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind. Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you can buy on street
corners.

The concept is clearly and exactly what the Framers had in mind, if they
didn't have specific information on future weapons technology. They did
*understand* scientific advancement and new technology, and they wisely
decided that to link the RKBA to technology was a recipe for disaster and
tyranny.

The presumptions of the Framers regarding "hoods and angry ex-husbands" were
just as well thought out. They had "hoods and angry ex-husbands" back then
too, and they (again) wisely realized that such people (and their ilk)
comprise a very, very small contingent of the population. They knew that if
they infringed on the rights of the general public in order to try to limit
access to arms by the minority of crooks in society, they would be throwing
out the baby with the bath water.

Benjamin Franklin said it perfectly: "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety."

Liberty is defended with arms, and the Framers trusted that a well-armed
citizenry was better prepared to deal with the occasional armed thug than an
unarmed citizenry would be.

Wow. You aren't faking are you? You're a full on nut! Pleased to meet you.

They PRESUMED that the vast majority of citizens would be armed, and would
in fact be carrying arms most of the time, and would therefore be able to
use those arms to keep the peace and defend against criminal assault.

Never
did the Framers intend that the citizenry be disarmed and that only the
police and military be armed. They explicitly and specifically constructed
our system to prevent precisely that.

And the efficacy of their judgment that the citizenry can be trusted with
arms is borne out by the experience of more than 40 states which now permit
lawful concealed carry. In *every place* where concealed carry is lawful,
violent crime rates drop, and there is no concomitant rise in illegal
firearms use. That is proof positive of the Framers judgment.

Holy sweet fancy moses.

The framers were talking about keeping a musket in the barn. There was no
armed forces. There were no assault weapons. And there weren't more than
30,000 Americans killed by guns each year at the hands of their neighbours.
If the framers could have foreseen that nuts like you would have interpreted
that "right to bear arms" phrase to mean "the right to carry a multiple clip
semi-automatic easily converted to fully automatic military assault weapon
and fire it into a McDonalds when I lose my temper" I'm pretty sure they
would rethink the whole thing. Total up all the Americans killed in every
war since 1775 and it is less than the total killed in gun deaths between
1979 and 1979. That's NOT what the framers had in mind.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:17 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:32 PM:


"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

LOL. You think if real people had died in waiting lines the
media would not
get the story?
========================
So, you don't even believe the people that monitor your health
care system now, eh?



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

As many as 100 children in Newfoundland face 30-month waits
for
the
high-tech scans, said Geoffrey Higgins, clinical chief of
diagnostic imaging
at the Health Care Corporation of St. John's. While the wait
is
"less than
ideal," he said patients' conditions are being investigated
and
followed by
other medical means, and that anyone needing an emergency
scan
gets one.
======================
LOL Sure, 2 years into a wait he might really NEED emegency
treatment, eh? At that time he goes right to the top of the
list. Maybe too late, eh? At the least, he has suffered more
than was medically necessary, and at worst is now beyond
treatment, or too weak to survive the treatment.


You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in
isolated or slum
areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their
convenience? Get
real.
====================
Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the
medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility
in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of
scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for
non-emergencies.
==================
LOL Again, sure. I understand that when he turns into an
'emergency' case he will be right in the door. That you don't
see a problem with that says alot about your blindly following
what you are being told...

Being told by whom?

Take a look into low birth weight babies born in Canada vs the
US. Being born low weight to a Canadian family is a greater
risk
that being born to a African-American family in the US. Where
does that fit in with your ill-concieved ideas that the 'poor'
in
the US suffer, while no-one in Canada does?

Where are you getting that information?
=======================
Try getting it yourself. You're the one in canada....

As I suspected. More yakety yak by someone who has no idea.

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...

Yes, rich people everywhere can find ways to get things that
other people
can't. Canada does not have a ban on rich people.
=====================
Yet you try to pretend that your have a single health care
system
for all, and equal for all.

I've said no such thing. But a poor person will receive a
higher standard of
care in Canada than most anywhere else on the planet.
======================
LOL Again, once they are an 'emergency', eh?

No. I can leave my house right now and drive to the nearest medical clinic
and get excellent care. They will not ask me how much money I make.

As to the 'anywhere else on the planet', Canada barely ranks
better than the US

And yet, ranks better, by whatever standard you are using.

and both are in the 30s, from the top of best
care. Both have serious problems, and jingoistically pounding
your chest about being #30 doesn't really mean anything, does it?


This means, logically,
at the other end of the scale a very rich person may indeed opt
to seek care
elsewhere.
================
Again, yes, rather than to wait until they are an 'emergency'
case.

You have no clue.

You are basing your ridiculous views on an isolated situation in
Newfoundland. That's like basing my view of US health care on some spot in
Alaska.




All it manages to do is promote a
have vs have-not conflict.

?

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:32 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article ,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:41 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 12:35 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article , Scott
Weiser at
wrote on 2/19/05 10:10 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:


Wilko

P.S. I'm still laughing because of the image of a bunch
of
fat, out of
shape middle aged men with shotguns, pistols and hunting
rifles trying
to take on well trained troops with fully automatic
weapons,
grenade
lauchers, tanks, helicopter gunships and all kinds of
sophisticated
weaponry bought with the tax that those old men paid.

Not only would the U.S. version of the secret police
probably
pick up
most of them before they could fire a shot,

Well, that's impossible because we do not have a "secret
police" force and
we take great pains to ensure that even the local police
do
not have access
to what records might exist on who owns what arms. That's
the
point of the
2nd Amendment. There are more than 300 million guns in
private
ownership in
the US, and the government has pretty much no idea
whatsoever
where the bulk
of those guns are or who has them. That's not a flaw in
our
system, it's a
feature specifically intended by the Framers.

LOL. Yeah, that's what the "Framers" had in mind.
==================
I'd dare say yes, as compared to your model of confiscation
and
bans.


Hoods and angry
ex-husbands walking around with assault weapons that you
can
buy on street
corners.
====================
You do like strawmen, don't you? What's an "assault
weapon"?

Have you heard of George W. Wush aka George Junior?
Apparently
he's the
President of the United States of America. He ssems to know
what an assault
weapon is.
==================
LOL Thanks for acknowledging that YOU don't have aclue, eh.

?



http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14-
d
ebate-fact-check_x.htm

Bush said he favored extending the ban on assault weapons
that
expired last
month but had not pushed Congress to do so because he had
been
told the bill
couldn't pass. "Republicans and Democrats were against the
assault weapon
ban, people of both parties," Bush said. In fact, most
Republicans opposed
extending the ban; most Democrats supported it. The last time
it came up for
a vote, on March 2 in the Senate, it was passed, 52-47. Only
6
Democrats
opposed it, along with 41 Republicans. The tally shows that
most of the
opposition came from Bush's own party.

http://www.jayinslee.com/index.php?page=display&id=44

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

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.

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

A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing
from the hip,
allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip
also helps the
shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it
easier to shoot
assault rifles one-handed.

A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the
firearm can
shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating. It
also allows
the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon,
without
incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
which serves
no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the
shooter to
remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in
combat
but
unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition,
the
flash
suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid
fire,
helping the
shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which
is
useful to
assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers
are illegal so
there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put
a
silencer on a
weapon.

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

====

So, along with George Junior, do you now know what an assault
weapon is?

I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind...
======================
Actually, yes. The fact that military and hunting weapons
were
not that much different then(or really now either)means
nothing.
The fact is they were protecting the right to arm for military
purposes, not hunting.

Are these weapons being purchased and used for military
purposes? As I said:
====================
That's not the claim. The claim was that they are what is
protected by rights.

And I think that the right of a drug dealer to walk into his local corner
store and buy an assault weapon to shoot up the local park has diddly to do
with what the framers wanted.

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. Yep, that's an important freedom to
protect. In fact, I
understand that the USA is one of the best places for a
terrorist to pick up
an AK-47 these days.
=====================
Ignorant spew... You're too hooked on hollywood for your
information, aren't you?

CASES OF TERRORISTS PURCHASING GUNS IN THE UNITED STATES

1) ELN (NATIONAL LIBERATION ARMY) OF COLOMBIA -- The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and US Customs have a recent case involving
weapons purchased in the US being trafficked to the ELN Guerilla movement
in Colombia. The case was started after the Colombian government seized 17
assault weapons (copies of the AK-47) from the ELN guerillas. They
requested a trace of the guns from the ATF here in the United States. The
guns had been sold to a Walter Macias in 1995 at a Florida gun store,
Garcia National. In the initial investigation, officials could not find
Walter Macias in the United States, despite the fact that he used a Florida
driver's license to purchase the weapons. After a second seizure of weapons
in 1997, which were traced back to Walter and Carlos Macias, authorities
realized that the Macias family was trafficking in firearms. The ATF
Agents checked other gun stores in the area and asked gun store owners to
alert them if they heard from the Macias brothers again. One local gun
dealer did call and alerted the authorities to an upcoming sale of 30
assault weapons. A co-conspirator to the Macias brothers eventually paid
$65,000 in cash for 30 assault weapons and attempted to illegally ship them
to Colombia. He was arrested by the ATF here in the United States and the
Macias brothers were arrested by authorities in Colombia. ATF officials
say this case is not unique and they have seen guns going to the FARC
(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), the ELN and the paramilitary
organizations in Colombia, all of which are on the US terrorism watch list.

2) THE IRISH REPUBLICAN ARMY -- Conor Claxton, a self-proclaimed member of
the IRA, traveled to Southern Florida several years ago and recruited
several other people to purchase handguns for him. He then illegally
shipped them to Ireland for use by the Provisional IRA. Claxton's
co-conspirators went to gun stores and gun shows and eventually found a
private seller to sell them large quantities of hand guns without any
background checks or reporting requirements to the ATF. Dozens of the guns
reached the IRA before officials became aware of the plot. The British
government contacted the US after they seized several of the guns and the
ATF realized it had already been watching one of the gun purchasers because
of suspicious multiple purchases. The investigation led to the arrest and
prosecution of four people in Fort Lauderdale, FL.

3) THE HEZBOLLAH -- ATF agents arrested Ali Boumelhem, 35, in November 2000
and accused him of shipping guns and ammunition to Hezbollah militants in
Lebanon, allegedly hiding the arms in cargo crates. Federal agents say they
watched Boumelhem, a resident of Detroit and Beirut, travel to gun shows to
buy gun parts and ammunition for shipment overseas. Boumelhem was arrested
by the FBI's joint terrorism task force, just before he was scheduled to
travel to Lebanon, authorities said. He is accused of being a leader in
Amal, a Lebanese militia organization, and a sympathizer with Hezbollah.


BALLISTIC FINGERPRINTING AND THE SNIPER CASE

Police often find shell casings and spent cartridges at crime scenes. The
technology now exists to trace those cartridges back to a specific gun, but
would require the cooperation of gun manufacturers. The gun makers would
have to keep a test fire from each gun made and link that spent cartridge
to the serial number of the gun. The unique markings on this cartridge
would then be digitized using laser imaging. Then, in a case like the
sniper case in Washington, DC, police could trace the cartridge back to a
specific gun. When they have a serial number for the gun, they can trace
the gun back to the original purchaser and this often provides concrete
leads for the criminal investigation.

While this is a complicated process, two states, New York and Maryland,
already have laws putting this system into practice. The sniper case
spurred enormous interest in further developing this process for a
nationwide ballistics fingerprinting system.


DANNY PEARL AND SHEIK JILANI

When Danny Pearl, the WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter, was abducted in
Pakistan, he was on his way to try to visit the leader of the Jamaat al
Fuqra group, Sheik Mubarak Jilani. Al Fuqra is one of the suspected
terrorist groups mentioned in GUN LAND . Pearl was doing research on
Richard Reid, the shoe-bomb suspect, and was following a lead that Reid had
studied and trained under Jilani at his compound in Lahore, Pakistan.

Pearl had gone to the US Embassy to discuss trying to find Jilani in
Pakistan and was warned by Embassy officials to not pursue an interview
with Jilani by himself. After Pearl's abduction, Jilani himself was
arrested in Pakistan but was later released and is not considered to be
involved with Pearl's death.

Sheik Jilani himself has long-standing connections with the Pakistani
intelligence service, the ISI, and has been linked to another Pakistani
terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujahidden. Jamaat al Fuqra targeted
African-American Muslims in the United States to combat those who they
consider enemies ‹ Hindus, Jews, and Muslims who stray from a conservative
religious practices. Jilani's motto -- "to purify Islam through violence."

Sources: The Associated Press and THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL, and others.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/gunland.html

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 5:59 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article K53Sd.37676$t46.25480@trndny04, No Spam at
wrote on 2/20/05 11:42 AM:

just after Bush stole his first presidency.

Bush won the election by every recount so far - have you found a different
result? I would like to see it. I am not some blind follower of Bush but I'm
getting tired of this stupid "Bush stole the election" crap. What happened
in Florida was absurd, but the result has been verify many times.

???

Perhaps you are unaware that the the Republicam members of the Supreme Court
stopped the recount.

Well, that would be because the recount was being performed in violation of
state and federal law in a biased manner that threatened the accuracy of the
election, and therefore the recount was ruled to be unlawful. The Supreme
Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, it's a neutral body that rules on
the law, not on politics.

True or false: it was the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that
voted to stop the recount.


As to what every recount so far has to say, it depends on who you ask. For
every http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm there's a
http://rightwingnews.com/john/tantrum.php

However, the ultimate arbiter has spoken. Clinton and Kerry both lost.

Actually, Clinton won.

I think you mean Al Gore.

And as mentioned, thanks to the Republican appointees the Supreme Court who
halted the recount, it will forever be known as the election that George W
Bush stole.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:12 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.

Science cannot disprove that a giant green spirit frog rules the world. That
is the strength of religious mythology - it is impossible to disprove the
existence of a deity. Anyone can make one up, and as long as they can
convince or coerce others to believe it to, they can accumulate power and
wealth - all thanks to a fantasy!

Weiser says:
==============
Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.
==================

What you don't comprehend is that no doctor is required to participate
in the national insurance scheme -- all doctors are free.

Weiser says:
=================
Doctors in the US don't go on strike
================

So, you're predicting that the 50,000 to 100,000 (and growing rapidly)
unionized doctors in the USA (can you say HMO?) will never go on
strike? Good luck on that one!

Weiser, in reference to the USA, says:
===============
Nope. They get paid exactly what the consume thinks their services are
worth.
===================

And you actually believe that, eh?

I suspect it's more a case of what the consumer "must" pay, because,
while you "talk to free market talk", "walking the walk" is quite
another thing. You have yet to explain how/why the free market doesn't
respond to such lucrative incomes with a greater supply of doctors.
Scott, isn't that the way it's supposed to work?

What in hell is wrong with you guys down there, that you can't get the
capitalist system to work for you as far as the supply of doctors is
concerned? Maybe if you could get these things right, we'd be inclined
to follow your example. But, so long as the simple supply-demand thing
remains a mystery to you, perhaps we'd best stick to a system that
produces better results. When you get the kinks worked out, give us a
call.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
==============
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.
===================

C'mon! Admit it! You're making this up as you go along. Either that, or
this is Faux News drivel.

Weiser says:
=================
We reacted based on the best intelligence available at the time.
=====================

BULL****! Your intelligence agencies may be good (or not), but other
nations do have intelligence agencies as well. How come they were
telling a different tale? They agreed with you on Afghanistan. They
disagreed on Iraq.

And there I was, sitting in a kayak in the Gulf islands, and even I had
this figured out. The lie was transparent.

frtzw906

frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 2/20/05 6:53 PM:

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.

You better tell your President, he uses the term assault weapons. And I
think he knows what he means be it - he means weapons meant for killing a
whole bunch of human beings quickly, slightly modified so that the trigger
has to be pulled repeatedly instead of just holding it down.

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

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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.

Heehee. You wish you were God, don't you? You are sitting in your living
room right now with a grenade launcher just cursing the fact that the USSR
collapsed before you had a chance to take to the streets and defend your
fellow citizens.

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.

My yes, you've certainly made me feel silly. I neglected to put the word
phrase "a variation of" in front of "AK-47."

rick, quite your moaning. If something got snipped, why don't you
remind us once more what was so g-d precious about it. Now instead of
addressing the issue you whine about peoples' responses.

frtzw906

rick: once more, instead of whining, remind us about what your precious
post said... please perhaps clarify... if i missed something, humblest
apologies... but please, i can't take the whiiiiine anymore.

frtzw906