| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... 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. It's totally relevant. Most people who are not gun nuts understand what is meant by "assault weapons" and that includes the president, who could hardly be described as anti-gun. 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. You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. 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. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? FYI: The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/akru/ak47.html The AK Info Center is a collection of articles on AK related items. We provide free information on different variants, parts, ammunition and accessories for the AK. You are free to browse or download the printed version, however none of the images/trademarks may be used without explicate permission from their owners. http://www.ak-47.net/ak47/index.html |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very afraid. And that's the way I like it. 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. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done to you. FYI: Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime. The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a "machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. -- 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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: You are one of the scariest sounding people I have ever encountered on usenet. I imagine I will read about you one day. The only people who need to be afraid of me are criminals, tyrants and terrorists. If you are one of the above, then you should be afraid...very afraid. And that's the way I like it. Yes, and you are happy to be the judge, jury, and executioner. And that is why I am sure we will all read about you one day. 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. I don't think my government ever speaks on these issues, how are they managing to turn me into a brainwashed slave? See, you've proven my point. You can't even understand what's being done to you. Wow, you are so clever...I was brainwashed by a government that never fed me any information. FYI: Why on earth are you presuming to give me information about firearms? You are one of the most grossly ignorant hoplophobes I've ever met, and I know more about firearms than you are even capable of learning in a lilfetime. I'm sure you sleep with one up your ass every night. The AK-47 is currently unavailable to the general public in the U.S., very few were imported into the country and those that did got snatched up by collectors. Yup. And every one of them held legally is registered with the BATFE as a "machine gun." More importantly, of the more than 500,000 legally-owned machine guns in the US, only ONE has ever been used by its legal owner to commit a crime, in the entire history of the Registry since it was imposed in 1934. Again, an enviable safety record. If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing. -- 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 |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote: If you desire a rifle that looks similar to the AK-47 we would suggest that you purchase a stamped 7.62x39 post-ban AK in the $200.00-$400.00 price range. Then purchase a U.S. parts kit from any of our sponsors and install it in the rifle, tell them you want the wood furniture. This will allow you to legally have a pistol grip mounted on the rifle. You will then need to purchase a non-ribbed 30 round AK magazine from Global Trades. The key being "looks similar." Functionally, the firearm operates no differently if it has look-alike parts installed. Uhuh. And you think it's unreasonable to describe such a firearm as a variation of the AK-47? The whole point to begin with is it is a weapon for killing a lot of people quickly. Nothing wrong with killing a lot of people quickly, if they need killing. And there you have it, Scott Weiser, future mass murderer. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote:
FYI: Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts! :-) Mike |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 24-Feb-2005, "KMAN" wrote: FYI: Unfair - your trying to confuse him with facts! ==================== It appears that you and kman have confused yourselves. What makes an AK47 knockoff any different that another less vicious gun? :-) Mike |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crimes Against Nature-- RFK, Jr. Interview | General | |||
Hybrid Mode
