64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 03:49 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
I must have said something right.
I am now being attacked by the extremists on both sides.
Oh well, such is life.


Our defense of civil rights does not mean we share your extremism.


True that.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  -1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 03:57 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
As a gun owner you do know that so call assault rifles used a cut down round with the power somewhere between a pistol round and a normal high power rifle round so that soldiers can carry more rounds in a normal combat load out and with fully auto rifles can put down more covering fire when that is call for.

They have less range and less killing power then heavy hunting rifles and the idea they are more deadly the civilian firearms is nonsense even if they are better overall battlefield weapons.


Where do you get this info. Bill? Are you a soldier who has battlefield experience. Or have been?
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:06 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't show a single fact that I have wrong.


I can. You asserted you answer questions put to you and you don't. And it's on the record.

I'm pretty sure mm doesn't hate the Constitution as well. Nor is he a fascist.

That's three.
oralloy
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:11 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
BillRM wrote:
As a gun owner you do know that so call assault rifles used a cut down round with the power somewhere between a pistol round and a normal high power rifle round so that soldiers can carry more rounds in a normal combat load out and with fully auto rifles can put down more covering fire when that is call for.

They have less range and less killing power then heavy hunting rifles and the idea they are more deadly the civilian firearms is nonsense even if they are better overall battlefield weapons.


Where do you get this info. Bill? Are you a soldier who has battlefield experience. Or have been?


It's common information known by pretty much everyone who is familiar with guns.

The .223 is designed for small animals like foxes, coyotes, and gophers. A deer rifle has much more power.
spendius
 
  -1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:20 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I am now being attacked by the extremists on both sides.


I don't think I attacked you mm. I answered your questions and I expressed my disgust at people shooting wild animals for fun and in an uncontrolled way.

Actually I can't comprehend how a civilised country of 312 million people, who are ordinary by definition, can be made to put up with this **** on the basis of some mouldering old document that was pretty much out of date soon after it was written and most certainly by 1850.

In 2012 it's as daft as a moose's head stuck on the wall paneling over the fireplace. 1798 was a world we cannot even understand. We can only pretend we do.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:21 pm
@spendius,
Nobody attacked MM.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:25 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You have a big mouth for someone who can't show a single fact that I have wrong.


I can. You asserted you answer questions put to you and you don't. And it's on the record.


Feel free to cite where I asserted that, or where I refused to answer any questions. If it's on the record, you should have no trouble doing so.



spendius wrote:
I'm pretty sure mm doesn't hate the Constitution as well.


Funny how merely seeing someone defending the Constitution will make him erupt into a storm of childish name-calling.



spendius wrote:
Nor is he a fascist.


Wrong. He directly suggested that people have their civil rights violated, and all for the "crime" of defending other people's civil rights.

He is very much a Fascist.



spendius wrote:
That's three.


Not really. But if you manage to come up with these supposed cites of my posts, I'll address whatever you come up with.
firefly
 
  3  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:25 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
I must have said something right.
I am now being attacked by the extremists on both sides.
Oh well, such is life.

The extremists on both sides have no ability to find any middle ground--which is why they can't be allowed to dominate the national discussion seeking solutions to the problem of gun violence--they block the solutions in order to retain their extremist positions.

Everything is black or white with extremists. You're either a "good guy" or a "bad guy" or "pro-gun" or "anti-gun", and you can't support the Second Amendment unless you agree that it means that just about everyone should be able to get their hands on just about any kind of weapon, in limitless quantities, with almost no questions asked, because otherwise you're a "freedom-hater".
And you absolutely have to deny that gun violence is a problem because there are other ways of killing people, and what difference does it make if it's a gun or a knife or a bomb, that kills people, because dead is dead--and, unless you make that denial of gun violence, it means you don't really know anything about guns.

You can't have rational and reasonable discussions with people who are neither rational nor reasonable or people who are wedded to an extremist view. Of course they will attack you.Laughing

BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:27 pm
@spendius,

Quote:
here do you get this info. Bill? Are you a soldier who has battlefield experience. Or have been?


It hardly a secret and can be found online with no problem along with any book that cover military weapons of the post WW2 era. With a footnote that the Germans came out with an assault weapon for it elite forces near the end of the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Assault rifle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the term used in the 1994-2004 US Assault Weapons Ban, or the possible 2013 US Assault Weapons Ban under legislative consideration, see assault weapon.
Not to be confused with assault gun.


The StG 44, the first true assault rifle, was adopted by the Wehrmacht in 1944. It fires the 7.92×33mm Kurz round.


Currently the most used assault rifle in the world, the AK-47 was first adopted in 1949 by the Soviet Army. It fires the 7.62×39mm M43 round.


The M16 was first introduced into service in 1964 with the United States Air Force. It fires the high velocity 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge and is the second most used assault rifle in the world after the AK-47.

An assault rifle is a selective fire (selectable among either fully automatic, burst-capable, or, sometimes, semi-automatic modes of operation) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the US legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies. cthat is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire but one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having but a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, INSAS, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80.
The assault rifle became the standard military rifle in the post-World War II era. The Soviet Union was the first nation in the post-war era to adopt an assault rifle, the AK-47, and other nations followed later.

Combat experience during the World Wars had shown that most infantry combat took place at 200–300 meters (218–328 yards) distance and that the winner of any given firefight would most likely be the one with the highest rate of fire. The rifle cartridges of the day were therefore unnecessarily powerful, producing recoil and report in exchange for marginal benefit. The lower power of the intermediate cartridge meant that each soldier could fire more bullets faster and/or with less recoil and its lighter weight allowed more ammunition to be carried.
Contents
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:27 pm
@firefly,
FF, you r one of my favorite extremists here on A2K.

You often make me laugh
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:30 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
It's common information known by pretty much everyone who is familiar with guns.


Let Bill answer the whole question eh? It was him it was put to.

Even a kid would know that it's common information to those who it is common information to.

Has Bill battlefield experience? Is he or was he a soldier? If not why the fascination with what soldiers do? It's ghastly. Such a fascination by a civilian is morbid. We had the Navy Seals brought up earlier.

Are people cosying up to the warriors using words? Sly allusions.
firefly
 
  3  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:35 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Nobody attacked MM.

Duh...you said this, in response to mysteryman's post
Quote:
Who invited this ******* idiot to jump in?


And oralloy has called him a Fascist, several times.

You two have an odd way of welcoming someone to the discussion. Laughing
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Not really. But if you manage to come up with these supposed cites of my posts, I'll address whatever you come up with.


You know very well that I'm not going back over the thread. I have asked you questions you have not answered. I know that for sure.

And mm is no fascist and he does not hate the Constitution. That's just your foolish mantra. I can't imagine anybody taking any notice of it. Not even the NRA. I would think they cringe hearing stuff like that.
BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:41 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Has Bill battlefield experience? Is he or was he a soldier? If not why the fascination with what soldiers do? It's ghastly. Such a fascination by a civilian is morbid. We had the Navy Seals brought up earlier.


So anyone who is interest in military history that is not a solder is mentally unbalance?

I just almost lost my last meal laughing so hard at the very concept that only military men or past military men should have a basic understanding of military matters and military weapons.

In my opinion it is too bad that more of the population do not have the facts so they would know they are being sold bullshit when it is stated that a rifle
that used an assault round is too powerful to be in civilians hands and only belong on the battlefield when in fact they are cut down rounds that are far less powerful the most civilian hunting rounds.

Footnote George Washington head of artillery General Green and one of his better overall generals had zero real life combat/military knowledge before the revolution but was a book store owner and a bookworm who read anything he could get his hand on concerning artillery and the military in general.
firefly
 
  3  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:53 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
In my opinion it is too bad that more of the population do not have the facts so they would know they are being sold bullshit when it is stated that a rifle that used an assault round is too powerful to be in civilians hands and only belong on the battlefield

But, when it's said by someone like Stanley McChrystal--the four star general, who commanded our troops in Afghanistan and ran Special Operations in Iraq--someone with extensive actual battlefield and weaponry experience, who says, with considerable authority, that some types of weapons do not belong in civilian hands or on our streets, only a fool, like you, would accuse him of trying to sell "bullshit."

I wonder which of you most people would consider more credible or authoritative?
BillRM
 
  0  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 04:57 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
But, when it's said by someone like Stanley McChrystal--a four star general, who commanded our troops in Afghanistan--someone with extensive actual battlefield experience, who says, with considerable authority, that some types of weapons do not belong in civilian hands or on our streets, only a fool, like you, would accuse him of trying to sell "bullshit."


Facts are facts and bullshit is bullshit no matter who is putting it out as it is no secret and there is no question that assault rifles rounds are cut down versions of hunting rounds and are far less powerful.

Any long range snipers under the good general command did not use an M16 but a far more powerful civilian hunting rifle or a fifty caliber sniper rifle.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 05:00 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
The extremists on both sides have no ability to find any middle ground--which is why they can't be allowed to dominate the national discussion seeking solutions to the problem of gun violence--they block the solutions in order to retain their extremist positions.


It's hardly extremist, ff, to be suggesting, and suggesting is all there is here, what is taken for granted in the UK and with the consent of the vast majority of the 62 million population.

I am not blocking any solutions. I am passing an opinion that compromisers are pissing into the wind if they are interested in seriously reducing gun violence.

I think the 2nd should be scrapped. It will be one day.

You don't think the deaths and injuries are the only costs in all this do you? They might even be a minor aspect of the economic and psychological damage.

Anybody who supports the 2nd is in bed with the NRA and its supporters on this thread. They can work with that all day long. In fact they love it.

They can't work with me. I would put the lot of them out of business overnight conscious of what a favour I would be doing for the people who live in the US. Especially the Tourist industry.

Whenever anybody announces that they have booked a holiday in the US most people look at them as if they have taken leave of their senses.

And I'm not attacking you either.
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 05:03 pm
@BillRM,
" a bookworm who read anything he could get his hand on concerning artillery and the military in general."

Sounds like you --- what position did you accomplish in the USA armed forces ??
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 05:04 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Quote:
Nobody attacked MM.

Duh...you said this, in response to mysteryman's post
Quote:
Who invited this ******* idiot to jump in?



I asked a valid question... was it you? It was you wasn't it?


0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Sat 12 Jan, 2013 05:10 pm
@tenderfoot,
Quote:
ounds like you --- what position did you accomplish in the USA armed forces ??


Sorry I been a bookworm all my life but military history is just one of my many many interests unlike General Green that seems to had concentrate on his era military science.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 06:56:19