Hmmmmmm......does that make the Kennedy clan Irish/Mexicans?
Careful there, my favorite JFM, lest you be accused of racial/ethnic "slurs". Off to the re-education camp with you, my politcally incorrect friend! You'll love it there; Donna Brazille is giving the multi-cultural diversity re-orientation lecture this week!
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Buck, serious question. The muzzle flash supressors allow you to see through to your target when shooting at night, correct? So by adding one you could see your targets a lot better at night and fire much quicker. Isn't that why they were banned?
Seems to make sense anyway - I'd put that in the same class as a larger clip.
Gerg, Respectfully, I'll take a crack at your query. The quick answer is no. The flash suppressor, hypothetically, is s supposed to make it harder for an opposing force to see the shooter. The muzzle blast/flash would still hurt the shooter's night vision. Since, night visions scopes are readily, and cheapily, available, the flash supprssor issue is kind of moot.
The manufacturs got BATF approval to use "muzzle breaks" rather than "muzzle suppressors", so nothing really changed. Merely, terminolgy, in effect.
Oh, also, I'm highly read in "N" word history, as well in "C" word history. Near as I can surmise, in net effect, they are 2 sides of the same coin. Both are totalitarinistic(?), and totally brutal and sadistic. Frankly, I don't see how one can have a discussion of the dangers of one, without the other.
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"
Registered: 08/17/04
Posts: 3260
Loc: Wilbraham Ma
Quote:
Originally posted by gerg: What the awb banned weren't the guns, it banned high capacity clips, muzzle flash surpressors, bayonett mounts, and a few other features only useful to someone wanting to kill a lot of people quickly and efficiently.
Typical liberal ignorant drivel!!!! You know that they are so worried about protecting us from the drive by bayonettings, muzzleflash blindings and folding stock pistol whippings. Worry about your local gang bangers with pistols and other weapons, none of which were legally purchased.
Quote baitrunner
Quote:
Those morons at Columbine would have been just as successful in their murder rampage with a bolt-action, 5-shot rifle as with anything; their victims were totally unarmed! Just reload as you go.
You are more corrct than you know. They did use bolt action rifles, their grandfathers deer rifles. I would think my Browning A-bolt II medallion in .300 mag would be a far more suited sniper weapon than an Ak or sks in capable hands.
The Assault weapon bill was simple fear mongering spread through misinformation. How many "assault weapon" crimes have you actually heard of? Even the few that you may have heard of were perpetrated by Criminals not legal gun owners. They scare people by making it seem they are banning fully automatic weapons (machine guns) which are already very heavily controlled and not effected at all by this ban. We need to get the guns out of the hands of these Criminals or get them to to do a better job of exterminating themselves with less innocent casualties. J/K
Also, thats true about n vs c. But I didn't bring up the "N" word, somebody else did.
Of course, the one big difference between N and C is that the leader of the N's was democratically elected and had the backing and support of his people.
Watch yourself, Arlow! You're closing in on the "who do I love more, Buck or Arlow" question! You don't, perchance, Mambo or Tango, do you?
Gerg, If memory serves the new Duma(?) endorsed Lenin at the 1st Revolutionary Congress, but I'd have to re-check it. Interesting point, though. I might counter it with the old expression about electing Communists. (One man; One vote: Once!)
(How's about Mugabe in Zimbabwe,(Rhodesia to you unrepenent racists! )? What a commie load he turned out to be, as an example!
While Lenin and his gang were forced to fight the White Russians and the foreign interventionists after the revolution, the worst Soviet oppression did'nt really begin until Stalin took the reigns of power. Hence, the murder/starving/deportations of the Kulaks, the beginnings of the Soviet Gulags, (although the Czars had their version of the Gulags, as well), the miltary purges of the '30's., etc. ad nauseum.
PS., Respectfully, I never said, nor implied, that you brought up that nasty "N" word business. You asked if anyone else was knowledgabe, about "Nazi" history and depredations. I am: my paternal relatives in "le Francais" paid a heavy cost to German occupation in both World Wars; my maternal relatives in Slovenia were wiped out by the Titoists in/after World War II.
By the by, once again if memory serves, Hitler was elected by pluralality(?), rather than majority vote, but I'd have to re-check that, as well. And there was always an active, if ineffective, German internal resistance to Hitler, and his ilk.
(I just re-checked it; Hitler never got more than 37% of the popular vote in his run for Chancellor; 67% of the people were against him. Reckon there's a lesson there, somewhere!)
"I think, that all right-thinking people, are sick and tired of being told that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired. I, for one, am not. And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am!"