Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Your argument, then, is that the military incorporates pistol grips on their rifles "to give the willies." Go buy a clue.

It's not about horror. It's about functionality. The pistol grip, in and of itself, is harmless. They're found on water guns and paint ball rifles. In combination with other features, such as those found in an assault weapon, they make for extremely efficient killing instruments.

No, the AR-15 is Glenn's cult object. He prostrates himself to it.

He is just refusing to allow his civil liberties to be violated.

Can you establish that the military even requires that their guns have pistol grips on them?

What functionality?

What is the compelling government interest in restricting this alleged functionality?



Let's see some evidence that "assault weapon" features, in any combination, make a gun substantially more lethal than the gun would be without those features.

Violating people's civil liberties for fun is a non-starter. You'll have to take up some other hobby.

Perhaps knitting?



Semi-auto actions have nothing to do with mass carnage.

The list of features considered to change a semiautomatic rifle into an unprincipled killing machine when combined with a pistol grip includes a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, bayonet lugs, and barrel shroud. I'm curious as to how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle you are aware of (or any grenade attacks, period). I'm also curious about how many shootings--mass or otherwise--that you are aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting. I'm also curious as to how many instances you are aware of in which a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? Who do you imagine such a shooter would be trying to hide their intentions from at that point? I'm also unaware of any law enforcement personnel complaining about a rash of bayonet stabbings. Ever hear of any officials making a statement like:

"Boy if it weren't for that flash suppressor, there'd be a lot less lives lost."

Or: "If it weren't for that bayonet lug, a lot of people would still be alive."

Or: "Too bad that rifle had a barrel shroud cuz god knows that damn thing really enhanced that rifle's deadliness."

The same goes for your hysterical reaction to pistol grips.

You don't understand that when you bring up the issue of pistol grips in a thread about gun control proposals, and then say that when combined with other features, they need to be banned, you need to prove that any of those combinations make an AR-15 more deadly. You haven't done that; no one has. You've simply attached false meaning to them that you cannot support with argument or data. But then, that's the nature of a cultist like yourself.

After all of the hysterical ideas about the AR-15 you've been pushing, you don't see yourself as the cultist here? You're here to advocate banning it because you hold religious-like beliefs concerning barrel shrouds, pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc. which are simply beliefs. But do continue. You're helping to make my point about what's really behind the condemnation.

Hmm. Go ahead and explain how it is that a barrel shroud or a bayonet lug in combination with a pistol grip magically turns a rifle into an extremely efficient killing instrument.

Semi sutomatic action alone makes a gun into an extremely efficient lilling machine. Lotta shots in a short time. Anything else is icing on the cake.

Yeah, we already know that you want all semiautomatic guns confiscated from their owners. Not going to happen. But since you're here to explain about the icing . . .

The list of features (icing) considered to change a semiautomatic rifle into an unprincipled killing machine when combined with a pistol grip includes a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, bayonet lugs, and barrel shroud.

Tell me how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle you are aware of (or any grenade attacks, period).

Tell me how many shootings--mass or otherwise--that you are aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting.

Tell me how many instances you are aware of in which a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? Who do you imagine such a shooter would be trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

Tell me if you are aware of any law enforcement personnel complaining about a rash of bayonet stabbings.

You don't understand that when you bring up the issue of pistol grips in a thread about gun control proposals, and then say that when combined with other features, they need to be banned, you need to prove that any of those combinations make an AR-15 more deadly. You haven't done that; no one has. You've simply attached false meaning to them that you cannot support with argument or data.

Nonsense. A semi-auto rifle with a five round magazine inserted into it is little different from any other hunting rifle.

Keep post ollie and Glenn. The more crap you post the more ridicules you make yourselves look. Just my opinion.

I didn't say require. I said incorporates.

Your compelling government interest argument is a non sequitur. It was irrelevant in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.


Look at the military studies.

Keep flailing at your straw men, and prostrating yourself to your AR-15.

See my response to your earlier straw man.

Speaking of hunting rifles, AR platforms are used for hunting coyotes and feral hogs, both of which are invasive and destructive species, those species are not very large and the smaller size of the common AR round is perfect for them.

AR platforms are generally not used or not permitted for hunting deer or elk due to the small caliber of the round, .223/5.56, it has nothing to do with how fast the weapon can fire. You can get a AR platform in .308 which is a decent round for deer/elk hunting, although I'm sure you can get an AR in a higher caliber for that type of hunting, but then you are looking at a custom rifle, it would be cheaper to buy the average hunting rifle.

No strawman. What we have here is you demonstrating your inability to respond to this.

The list of features (icing) considered to change a semiautomatic rifle into an unprincipled killing machine when combined with a pistol grip includes a grenade launcher, a folding stock, a flash suppressor, bayonet lugs, and barrel shroud.

Tell me how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle you are aware of (or any grenade attacks, period).

Tell me how many shootings--mass or otherwise--that you are aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting.

Tell me how many instances you are aware of in which a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? Who do you imagine such a shooter would be trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

Tell me if you are aware of any law enforcement personnel complaining about a rash of bayonet stabbings.

You don't understand that when you bring up the issue of pistol grips in a thread about gun control proposals, and then say that when combined with other features, they need to be banned, you need to prove that any of those combinations make an AR-15 more deadly. You haven't done that; no one has. You've simply attached false meaning to them that you cannot support with argument or data.

Now, if you are incapable of explaining your rationale for condemning the icing of which you speak, just say so. Calling these questions a strawman is not a substitute for proving your claims. So go ahead and answer for the claims you made.

Say, what a good idea. Why don't you post those studies. I assume you've seen them, or you wouldn't have mentioned them.

Walk into a school luchroom with a semi auto rifle and a five shot magaxine and five seconds later you walk.out leaving five dead little boies behind. Thats deadly enough to appal most people but apparently not enough for the video game desonsitized. By rhe way nice of you to think of dead kids like dead deer.