Joe Dees wrote:
> > As for bayonet lugs, when was the last time anyone was murdered
> > with a bayonet (outside government sponsored action, of course)?
>
> Proof that it's purpose is not civilian hunting, unless you wanna
> sneak up and knife your buck.
*That* is a stupid justification for banning something. Who cares if
it isn't used for civilian hunting? It isn't like it has ever been
used for anything bad either. Actually, bayonet lugs are most
commonly used to mount flashlights in my experience, for safety reaons
(I don't, but a lot of people do). Who the hell would bayonet someone
if they have a rifle? Bayonet lugs exist as a battlefield contigency
and take some skill to use; they exist on civilian weapons because it
saves manufacturers money not to fork a design for military
contract parts for no obvious reason. It boggles my mind that people
fixate on such a truly superficial feature.
If we applied your reasoning to everything, you'd lose most of the
things you own, and everything that remained would have far fewer
features.
> > Flash suppressors
> > don't do anything that has any applicability to criminal use (if
> > you think it does, you don't know what a flash suppressor is for)
> > and falls under the same category as barrel shrouds.
>
> They're great for hiding the source location of snipers, especially
> at night.
You had to do it...<sigh>. A flash suppressor does *not* (repeat:
does *not*) have any use for hiding snipers. In fact, real snipers
intentionally do not use flash suppressors because it actually
increases the muzzle signature (yes, really). But then, if you knew
what you were talking about you wouldn't have mentioned it. Remember,
the real world isn't like the movies.
> So you don't want the herd to know where you're picking
> them off from? It's not a (game) hunting attachment.
Some people don't seem to use their brain much either. Should we
demand that they get a lobotomy? Sure they seem harmless now, but a
fool is just *begging* for trouble.
> > Folding/collapsible stocks are good for
> > paratroopers and small statured people that can't use a rifle that
> > has a regular stock because of length-of-pull issues.
>
> That's a reasonable civilian use, but a short stock will do the
> same.
Congratulations, you shit on your own argument. The NFA that you love
so much forbids shortened stocks, as it makes rifles "too
concealable". The only "out" in this was collapsible/folding stocks.
Thanks to the '94 gun control legislation, these are now also banned.
I know a great number of Asian women who *require* collapsible stocks
to use a rifle, as any NFA legal stock has a length of pull that is
too long.
As I said, "well-intentioned but poorly educated".
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT