| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...t/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. ==== 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. 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. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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/politic...t/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. ==== 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. 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. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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/politic...t/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 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. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"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/politic...t/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 actually, you have said nothing... 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? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 donąt 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
