A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

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.

As I said, it's a coined phrase that's entered the lexicon for the express
purpose of demonizing particular visual aspects of certain semi-automatic
firearms. That the president may use it is not really relevant.


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

I note that you cannot refute any of my arguments.


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?

Nope, I'm just an ordinary citizen who understands his duty to his fellow
citizens and his right to be armed for self-defense and the defense of
others against violent attack.

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.

Nah, I don¹t have a grenade launcher. They're too expensive and the
ammunition's too hard to get. Besides, area weapons rarely qualify as proper
self-defense arms.

As for defending my fellow citizens, I do it every day by carrying a gun
every day. It's often a pain, but it's my duty and my right and I take both
seriously.


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."

It's not even a variation. But you are indeed silly. You don't understand
history, technology or law when it comes to firearms in the US. This is, of
course, because you are a brainwashed slave of your government, which makes
your ignorance entirely understandable.





--
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

Weiser, in reference to Canada says:
=================
And there certainly ARE government-employee doctors
=================

Yes there ARE. As there ARE in the USA. So what?

Weiser says:
==================
You need to learn the distinction between a union and an HMO. HMO
doctors can't strike because it's in their contract.
================

I know the distinction: the HMO is the management. Now, while I also
know that the USA is not particularly union-friendly, I also know that,
once a contract has expired, union members can withhold their services.
A strike by any other name... Which leaves the question: where is the
HMO going to find replacement doctors on short notice? Can't strike eh?
How little you understand collective power.

Weiser says:
==============
But, as soon as the new crop is trained, they become
available to the market.
===============

So, can we ever expect the supply of doctors to be such that the price
goes down? Not bloody likely, I'll venture.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

rick says:
===============
Start at the Fraser Institute. Surely you've heard of them. They're
in
Canada.
=================

Everybody in Canada has heard about those clowns. Before citing them,
you'd best find out who funds them. Once you've figured that out,
you'll know which butts they're kissing.

Clearly you get all your information from the CBC.

'Nuff said.
--
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 KMAN wrote:


"rick" wrote in message
news

I think the fact that more than 30,000 Americans will be killed by guns
at
the hands of their fellow citizens this year is massively irrational.
========================
Tell me, how many were with these so-called assault weapons, by the corner
drug-dealer.

Why are you offended by the term assault weapons?

Because it's a semantic deception. It's a phrase coined by the liberal media
in an attempt to demonize certain semi-automatic firearms based on their
visual appearance.

Nice try at evasion, however. His actual question was "how many" of the
(specious and incorrect) number of deaths you claim were caused by "assault
weapons?"

Do you have an answer? Clue: The information is available from the FBI, and
the numbers are actually very small.


If there are national statistics on gun deaths through drug related offences
I'd be interested to see them.

Then go look them up.

--
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

Weiser says:
================
Not, of course, that the WMD issue was of primary
importance in the first place.
================

OK, what was the important thing then? What was that "1441" thing?

After the fact, you Bushies keep saying "it wasn't the WMD! it wasn't
the WMD! it wasn't the WMD!" But before the war, all we heard was: "
it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD! it's about the WMD!"

make up your minds.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
================
Clearly you get all your information from the CBC.
=================

and your point is..... ?

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

That is not even close to true. The invasion of Iraq was illegal.

Nope.

Prove it.

Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty.



The
invasion of Honduras was illegal.

Nope.

Prove it.

Ibid.

--
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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Once mo "Rights" are not granted by the Constitution. Rights exist as an
inherent part of one's humanity, even without the existence of government,
and they cannot be repealed or removed by government on a wholesale basis.

Sophistry.

Truth.


Your rights may be deemed to exist independent of any government or
document, but in real terms, you cannot enjoy those rights unless
you are permitted to by governments and/or the majority and/or
the tyrants that hold power. Individuals have nothing that can
control this. Only civilizations do.

This demonstrates the depth of your misunderstanding. The whole point of our
2nd Amendment and our very system of government is that the government does
not "permit" anything. We, the People, empower representatives and
bureaucrats to exercise strictly limited authority on a limited number of
subjects. All else is reserved to the people themselves. If these
bureaucrats transgress, we remove them from office. If they don't want to
go, we use force to remove them.

The entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the People, as a
whole, ALWAYS have sufficient arms to achieve that end at necessity.

Thus, the People do have something to "control" tyranny, including the
tyranny of the majority, should peaceful means fail. That is precisely and
exactly what the Framers intended.

--
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 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind?

How about letting Californians live without artificial water shortages
caused by agriculture taking the vast majority of what is available.

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

--
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

Weiser says:
================
You mean like the French and Germans? Well, they came to different
conclusions because they were corruptly in bed with Saddam and had a
profit
motive to dissuade us from invading.
================

Could it be that the USA, which is corruptly in bed with the Saudis,
had a motive to control oil supplies and thus invaded Iraq? Of course
it could. Not only that, but that motive is much more credible that any
motives ascribed to the French.

frtzw906