Joe Dees wrote:
> >From: James Rogers <email@example.com>
> >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
> Like jacklighting?
Like racoon hunting. Like for your home defense weapon (which you will likely
have to use at night, and its a little hard to pump that shotgun or lever that
30-30 with a flashlight in your hand).
> >(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.
> You said it yourself; bayonets exist because battlefields, unlike hunting trips, sometimes involve close combat. It's not much of a modification to take it off; much more costly modifications are commonly implemented to circumvent laws, or to attract criminals, such as 'fingerproof' surface. What's the legitimate use for that featiure, huh?
Home defense also sometimes involves close combat....
> >If we applied your reasoning to everything, you'd lose most of the
> >things you own, and everything that remained would have far fewer
> Prove it. Such unsupportable assumptions obviate what worth might possibly be found in your contentions. What would it cost my heating and air conditionong, my car, my house, my sound system, my television, etc., to have all their nonexistent 'military' features removed?
Actually, your equalizer originated as a military application. Your GPS unit is
a military device (gee, you must only need it if you intend to lob a cruise
missile or artillery shells on someone, so you MUST be a terrorist).
> >> > 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.
> Why are they vcalled flash *suppressors*, then, instead of flash liberators? Are suppressed flashes brighter in your Orwellian terminology? What purpose could flash suppressors that do not suppress flashes possibly serve?
What they are intended to suppress is recoil, and are typically properly defined
as 'muzzle brakes', but many do not do this job well, they are typically just
useless 'cool toys'. Flash supressors do decrease the perceptible flash for the
person firing, but typically the flash is spread out to the side in a star
pattern that makes it easier for the enemy to pinpoint the source of fire.
> >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".
> I'm not opposed to collapsible stocks, either; handguns are much more concealable than any collapsed-stock rifle. My main gripe is with the semiauto capability, especially when it can be easily kitted to full auto. Either short or collapsible will do, and I'm quite sure that the great many tiny Asian women you personally know (and they are not ALL small) are blessed by your acquaintanceship.
Semi auto capability cannot be easily kitted to full auto in many firarms. The
method by which this is accomplished (its illegal for me to give you the details
for doing any sort of modificiation to a class I device to make it a class III
device), will typically cause most semi-auto guns to simply fire off the whole
magazine in an uncontrolled manner. It is a federal felony to modify any gun
sold interstate in order to make it fully auto, so you really have no gripe,
unless you want to ban all semi-auto firearms entirely.
Moreover, a semi-auto firearm is qualitatively little different from a double
action revolver. Indeed, the most impressive demonstrations of pistol
marksmanship in terms of both accuracy and firing speed have been accomplished
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT