So it's an OK way to use a gun SS? Thanks for proving my point. Anyone who would lite a cigar using a hundred dollar bill, is loony, and I don't care how much money he has. Nice to know Mike's "reasonable" gun loon proves how stupid he is.
You joke, but there's a good point to be made here. Every "assault weapon" ban that I know of counts barrel shrouds as one of the evil "military features" that must go. The barrel gets hot enough to quicly fry bacon, but shooters are not to have any protection from that heat. Yep--the part of the gun that protects the shooter from serious burns is now something evil, and people should be sent to prison for owning one.
The identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned spearately. You know this but you keep picking them out one at a time to mock the whole effort. You're bogus, Kurt.
The identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned [separately].
What the hell difference does that make? The point is that one of the features of a gun that you want to become a crime to own is the feature that protects a shooter's hands from burns. Besides, California's version of an "assault weapon" ban, the one held up as a model for the rest of the country, defines "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle with even one of the "military features," one of which is a barrel shroud. So yes--that one, separate feature is banned, even when unaccompanied by other "military features."
Mike, its those features, exactly those features that the anti-gun people, the ban gun people have been going for. The same exact gun without those features have been A-OK in their writings. So try again and keep up with the truth.
MikeB: "The identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned spearately."
Uh yeah. When it is just a plastic tube sitting by itself on a table, it is not to be banned. It is only to be banned when serving the function of a safety device by shrouding a barrel which could become dangerously hot. So hot that it could lead to dropped guns and loss of gun rights for life (as well as burns). I don't see what point you are trying to make by pointing this out, however. The people who call for this are against gun safety.
Newcastle: "The same exact gun without those features have been A-OK in their writings. "
I wouldn't say that. These people, after defining what makes an "assault weapon", complained when manufacturers complied with their demands and made guns without them. Two years ago in California, they revised their "one feature" definition of "assault weapons" to be a "zero feature" test. This in response to a nut job murdering children 3000 miles away using a gun with one feature. Who the hell knows what is A-OK with them? They don't even know themselves... or they lie all the time.
Kurt: "Besides, California's version of an "assault weapon" ban, the one held up as a model for the rest of the country, defines "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle with even one of the "military features," one of which is a barrel shroud. So yes--that one, separate feature is banned, even when unaccompanied by other "military features.""
And as I pointed out to Newcastle, the legislators proceeded to pass a law changing the single feature test to be a zero feature test as a response to Newtown (thankfully vetoed).
Look, that guy uses a gun that we already call illegal to do something horrific. Let's ban more guns!
I also believe at some point some gun-hating legislator introduced a bill to ban "assault weapon conversion kits"... Which is essentially the parts that you could attach to an "ordinary" semi-automatic rifle to make it into an "assault weapon". I.E. it bans pistol grips and barrel shrouds by themselves, and unattached to a firearm.
I'm sure all your gun loons will go out and try it now. Gun loons think this is cool.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's terribly cool Anon. Just a pretty spendy way to cook bacon. Sort of like lighting a cigar with a hundred dollar bill.
ReplyDeleteWhat it is is Ted Cruz pretending to be one of you gun guys. It's political gamesmanship, and I'll bet you're an exception, ss. Most will love it.
DeleteThanks for proving my point, kill crazy gun loon.
DeleteSo it's an OK way to use a gun SS?
DeleteThanks for proving my point.
Anyone who would lite a cigar using a hundred dollar bill, is loony, and I don't care how much money he has.
Nice to know Mike's "reasonable" gun loon proves how stupid he is.
Machine Gun?? Where?
ReplyDeleteSurely someone will want to ban bacon shrouds now.
ReplyDeleteYou joke, but there's a good point to be made here. Every "assault weapon" ban that I know of counts barrel shrouds as one of the evil "military features" that must go. The barrel gets hot enough to quicly fry bacon, but shooters are not to have any protection from that heat. Yep--the part of the gun that protects the shooter from serious burns is now something evil, and people should be sent to prison for owning one.
DeleteAnd these vermin claim to support "gun safety."
The identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned spearately. You know this but you keep picking them out one at a time to mock the whole effort. You're bogus, Kurt.
DeleteThe identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned [separately].
DeleteWhat the hell difference does that make? The point is that one of the features of a gun that you want to become a crime to own is the feature that protects a shooter's hands from burns. Besides, California's version of an "assault weapon" ban, the one held up as a model for the rest of the country, defines "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle with even one of the "military features," one of which is a barrel shroud. So yes--that one, separate feature is banned, even when unaccompanied by other "military features."
Mike, its those features, exactly those features that the anti-gun people, the ban gun people have been going for. The same exact gun without those features have been A-OK in their writings. So try again and keep up with the truth.
DeleteMikeB: "The identifying characteristics of the so-called assault weapons, including barrel shrouds, are not to be taken separately and banned spearately."
DeleteUh yeah. When it is just a plastic tube sitting by itself on a table, it is not to be banned. It is only to be banned when serving the function of a safety device by shrouding a barrel which could become dangerously hot. So hot that it could lead to dropped guns and loss of gun rights for life (as well as burns). I don't see what point you are trying to make by pointing this out, however. The people who call for this are against gun safety.
Newcastle: "The same exact gun without those features have been A-OK in their writings. "
I wouldn't say that. These people, after defining what makes an "assault weapon", complained when manufacturers complied with their demands and made guns without them. Two years ago in California, they revised their "one feature" definition of "assault weapons" to be a "zero feature" test. This in response to a nut job murdering children 3000 miles away using a gun with one feature. Who the hell knows what is A-OK with them? They don't even know themselves... or they lie all the time.
Kurt: "Besides, California's version of an "assault weapon" ban, the one held up as a model for the rest of the country, defines "assault weapons" as any semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle with even one of the "military features," one of which is a barrel shroud. So yes--that one, separate feature is banned, even when unaccompanied by other "military features.""
DeleteAnd as I pointed out to Newcastle, the legislators proceeded to pass a law changing the single feature test to be a zero feature test as a response to Newtown (thankfully vetoed).
Look, that guy uses a gun that we already call illegal to do something horrific. Let's ban more guns!
I also believe at some point some gun-hating legislator introduced a bill to ban "assault weapon conversion kits"... Which is essentially the parts that you could attach to an "ordinary" semi-automatic rifle to make it into an "assault weapon". I.E. it bans pistol grips and barrel shrouds by themselves, and unattached to a firearm.