On 2019-04-04 3:46 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our
murders, at least in the sense you are talking about.

But the murders that most with a clue care about.

The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3
or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street
corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single
thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef.

Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef.

The police are even reluctant to attribute as many
murders to the drug war as are happening because
it further points out their dismal failure in that war.

It was never going to be a winnable war.


the drugs war is over already , drugs won

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:46:28 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the obnoxious senile idiot's obnoxious troll****

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 09:01:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another 123 lines of the senile Ozzietard's troll****

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On 4/4/2019 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s
Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?
It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Â* Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

* Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?


I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

My choice barks over her and bites over yonder. This is mean hand gun
I got.
--
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."
-- Winston Churchill

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s

*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?

No, I'm a doctor (retired). I once made a (full) auto Berreta
by jamming the firing pin so it didn't retract, but it was just a
"project". The thing was almost impossible to control and a complete
waste of ammo. So I "undid"it.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:48 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:37, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will
have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.* Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).** I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession.** Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either an auto rifle or an auto handgun.

If you wanted to kill lots of people, then an auto firing gun would
seem to be an obvious choice.

A semi auto. One that reloads automatically. An "auto" would
just shoot one or two people lots of times.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:14 -0700, % wrote:

On 2019-04-04 3:46 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our
murders, at least in the sense you are talking about.

But the murders that most with a clue care about.

The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3
or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street
corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single
thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef.

Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef.

The police are even reluctant to attribute as many
murders to the drug war as are happening because
it further points out their dismal failure in that war.

It was never going to be a winnable war.


the drugs war is over already , drugs won

Yeah it is like Vietnam, the war was clearly demonstrated to be a
loser by 1968 but we stayed there losing our people until 1975.

On 04/04/2019 08:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

The French adopted a wait and see attitude until the Battle of Saratoga
convinced them the colonist were serious and could prevail over a
British general. fwiw, Benedict Arnold had a lot to do with that; Gates,
a retired British general, was content to sit on his butt and drink tea.
Gates showed his true level of skill at Camden.

There are many scenarios in a wide range of novels, but let's pick one
hypothetical instance. The Republic of Texas decides to secede, and
manages to win a battle or two. Do you not think an external government
that would like to see a weakened US might not provide support? The
Brits stuck their noses into the first US civil war, but were hindered
by blockades of the CSA ports. Texas has a big, beautiful border with
Mexico.

If nothing else constant harassment by irregulars along with a boundless
taste for foreign adventures could bleed the government dry. Even
widespread resistance can do the trick. Have you forgotten the
Revolutions of 1989?

On 04/04/2019 10:59 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 12:38:04 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

Semi-auto, I think you'll find.

Cindy Hamilton


That point is lost on Bod. When you don't know **** about firearms you
make it up as you go along, like Joe Scarborough's theory that an AR-15
is much deadlier than a M-16.

On 04/04/2019 03:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.

You have a lot of criminals with full auto firearms, do you?

On 4/4/2019 7:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Â* Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?

I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

My choice barks over her and bites over yonder. This is mean hand gun
I got.

Â* I bet it ain't any meaner than a TC Contender with a 14" bull barrel
chambered in .30 Herrett . And wearing a 4X TC RP scope ... With the
right load that one grouped under 1/2" at 50 yards . And a 125 gr soft
point leaving the muzzle at 2100+ FPS had more energy at 50 yards than a
..44 mag w/240 gr has at the muzzle .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 5:54 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s
Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?
It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Â* Now that would take a Real Machinist !

Not really. If you just want a .22 put a rubber band on the bolt up
and over the receiver. Extend the firing pin by pushing out the
striker against the rebound spring. fill the magazine and pull the
bolt back against the rubber band.
Since the striker is blocked forward and will not move back into the
main spring, the trigger will hold the bolt open.
(one off nail, no machine shop necessary)
It will rock and roll when you pull the trigger, just like the M3
Grease Gun. (at least on a Winchester M69)

At least that is what I hear, I would never do that or suggest anyone
else doing it I swear. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
(although the statute of limitations ran out sometime around 1968)


I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?

On 04/04/2019 06:58 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:08:01 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

It would be as easy to make a bolt action into a "blowback" machine
gun as most semi autos that were not first designed as machine guns.

Now that would take a Real Machinist ! I have a small machine shop
and I know where to get the plans to make a couple of different arms
into full autos . But that $250,000 fine and ten years in prison is a
pretty good deterrent . Especially since I don't have any arms that can
be easily converted - and have less than zero need for one . I prefer to
do my work with bolt actions at a slightly longer distance ... Rock
chucks at 400 meters anyone ?


I prefer just a six shot revolver. It goes bang every time and won't
jam with brass at ejection.

Unless you're Jerry Miculek there is a bit of a pause between bang 6 and
bang 7. Unless you've got one of those fancy Smith 627s of course. The
first time I saw someone shooting one of those there was a WTF? moment
at bang 7.

I always assumed I was slow to reload because I'm left handed but then I
realized right handed people do a juggling act too.

On 4/4/2019 8:28 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s
Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?
No, I'm a doctor (retired). I once made a (full) auto Berreta
by jamming the firing pin so it didn't retract, but it was just a
"project". The thing was almost impossible to control and a complete
waste of ammo. So I "undid"it.
[]'s

Â* That arm was never meant to fire from an unlocked breech , I'm
surprised you didn't get a face full of slide . How did you initiate the
firing sequence , with the slide release ?

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:28:11 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

Â* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s

Â*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?

No, I'm a doctor (retired). I once made a (full) auto Berreta
by jamming the firing pin so it didn't retract, but it was just a
"project". The thing was almost impossible to control and a complete
waste of ammo. So I "undid"it.

I was given a "Ruby" .32 auto that did that all by itself until I
cleaned up the sear. It was a magazine dump the first time I fired it.

On 04/04/2019 11:05 AM, Shadow wrote:
Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the
government and put in concentration camps.
Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!!

Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the
government because of their political beliefs.
Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!!

Thousands of Americans ....


Best argument I can think of for being heavily armed... The Japs didn't
have much but chopsticks and the IWW members they rounded up at Bisbee
and sent to New Mexico were also without much weaponry. Only one deputy
was shot.

On 04/04/2019 04:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:48 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:37, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will
have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

 What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either an auto rifle or an auto handgun.

If you wanted to kill lots of people, then an auto firing gun would
seem to be an obvious choice.

Only if you were too ignorant to come up with another idea.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

They were more created in the good old days. MAGA!

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2019 08:02 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution
was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

The French adopted a wait and see attitude until the Battle of Saratoga
convinced them the colonist were serious and could prevail over a British
general. fwiw, Benedict Arnold had a lot to do with that; Gates, a retired
British general, was content to sit on his butt and drink tea. Gates
showed his true level of skill at Camden.

There are many scenarios in a wide range of novels, but let's pick one
hypothetical instance. The Republic of Texas decides to secede, and
manages to win a battle or two. Do you not think an external government
that would like to see a weakened US might not provide support? The Brits
stuck their noses into the first US civil war, but were hindered by
blockades of the CSA ports. Texas has a big, beautiful border with Mexico.

If nothing else constant harassment by irregulars along with a boundless
taste for foreign adventures could bleed the government dry. Even
widespread resistance can do the trick. Have you forgotten the Revolutions
of 1989?

Those didn’t involve many guns in the hands on the not govt.

"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2019 11:05 AM, Shadow wrote:
Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the
government and put in concentration camps.
Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!!

Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the
government because of their political beliefs.
Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!!

Thousands of Americans ....


Best argument I can think of for being heavily armed...

Didn’t do the Black Panthers, Simbionese Liberation Army,
Koresh or Ruby Ridge any good. They ended up dead
rather than in jail.

The Japs didn't have much but chopsticks and the IWW members they rounded
up at Bisbee and sent to New Mexico were also without much weaponry. Only
one deputy was shot.

And if they had been heavily armed, they would have ended up dead.

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.
The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang
bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with
that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the
ear over some kind of drug beef.
The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug
war as are happening because it further points out their dismal
failure in that war.

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?
--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 05/04/2019 02:31, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:48 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:37, Bod wrote:
On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will
have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either an auto rifle or an auto handgun.

If you wanted to kill lots of people, then an auto firing gun would
seem to be an obvious choice.

A semi auto. One that reloads automatically. An "auto" would
just shoot one or two people lots of times.
[]'s

Ok.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 05/04/2019 02:35, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 15:58:14 -0700, % wrote:

On 2019-04-04 3:46 p.m., Rod Speed wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands
will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been
paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population
and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a
large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military
training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

Â* The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you
can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history.Â* Show
one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns).Â*Â* I'm less convinced about handguns,
but could
support revolver possession.Â*Â* Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings.Â* (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our
murders, at least in the sense you are talking about.

But the murders that most with a clue care about.

The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3
or 4 gang bangers having a turf battle on some urban street
corner. Even with that it still pales in comparison to the single
thug taking one in the ear over some kind of drug beef.

Not just a drug beef, any sort of beef.

The police are even reluctant to attribute as many
murders to the drug war as are happening because
it further points out their dismal failure in that war.

It was never going to be a winnable war.


the drugs war is over already , drugs won

Yeah it is like Vietnam, the war was clearly demonstrated to be a
loser by 1968 but we stayed there losing our people until 1975.

Drug wars will never be won until governments make all illegal drugs
legal and properly regulated, just like alcohol prohibition didn't work.
The problems began when we made cocaine illegal.

1920: Cocaine is banned as an illegal substance in the U.K. under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. This started an illegal importation trade. Some
enterprising traffickers used homing pigeons sent from France to bring
in a gram at a time.

1920s: Evidence of a €˜modern underground drug scene emerging in Soho,
London.

Before these drugs were made illegal there were very few addicts.

Governments never seem to learn from history.

Illicit drug use should not be a crime, says Royal College of Physicians:
The Royal College of Physicians of London has joined calls for an end
to criminal sanctions against people who take drugs such as heroin,
cocaine, and cannabis for non-medical reasons.

The college now endorses the stance of the Faculty of Public Health and
the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH). In a 2016 report1 the RSPH
concluded that the €œwar on drugs€� fails to deter drug misuse but instead
deters people with drug use disorders from seeking treatment and
inhibits harm reduction efforts.

https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1832

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Bod" wrote in message
...

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists,
and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't
complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one
example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own
government
without any aid from an external government (even the American
Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but
could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can
easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified
semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.
The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang
bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with
that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the
ear over some kind of drug beef.
The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug
war as are happening because it further points out their dismal
failure in that war.

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 14:55:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of the senile idiot's stinking troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 18:58:28 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Or a semi auto either. There isnt a lot of game that charges the
individual shooting at them so they need a semi auto to survive.

You know that YOU are VERY lucky that your neighbours in Australia aren't
allowed to have guns anymore, you obnoxious senile pest? BG

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 14:46:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Those didn¢t involve many guns in the hands on the not govt.

In auto-contradicting mode again, you abnormal obnoxious senile pest from
Oz?

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:59:19 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Joe Public does not have a fully auto gun. The permit for that is
extremely expensive.

Criminals are criminals and they don't care about permits.

Joe Public has a semi-auto gun. It fires once every time you pull
the trigger.

Every mass murder I can think of was perpetrated with semi-auto guns.
Even that guy in Las Vegas who used a bump stock to increase his
rate of fire.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 05:59:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

They don't. A pump action is fast enough for any legitimate
use, and can't be made "auto".
And a bolt action is sufficient for hunting.
A twelve bore shotgun loaded with buckshot will deter any
"home invaders", unless they have a death wish.

But it's a talking point for the guys that think their
pea-shooters will do anything against a rogue government.
"birth right" (until it's not - vis the American Orientals put in
concentration camps), "I'll shoot the tanks", "blow the nerve gas away
with my muzzle blast".

Sorry about the examples, I'm not a good mental mass debater.
[]'s.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 04/05/2019 04:49 AM, wrote:
On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 12:59:19 AM UTC-4, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

Joe Public does not have a fully auto gun. The permit for that is
extremely expensive.

Criminals are criminals and they don't care about permits.

Joe Public has a semi-auto gun. It fires once every time you pull
the trigger.

Every mass murder I can think of was perpetrated with semi-auto guns.
Even that guy in Las Vegas who used a bump stock to increase his
rate of fire.

I argued fairly seriously at the time that the body count would have
been higher had he employed aimed fire. He may not have been
psychologically able to do so. A number of studies have suggested even
in a combat zone many do not aim at a specific target. A lot of rounds
went downrange in Vietnam bt nobody was counting langur and rice field
rat casualties. I take that back; Westmoreland did during his progress
reports.

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:01:15 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/04/2019 04:39 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:56:48 +0100, Bod wrote:

Only if you were too ignorant to come up with another idea.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Hey, that's a great idea. Maybe Trump should Preet about it.
Make it a National Hero day ?

They were more created in the good old days. MAGA!

There are more created today. Tick-tock.
That's why Trump was elected.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:59:08 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/04/2019 11:05 AM, Shadow wrote:
Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the
government and put in concentration camps.
Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!!

Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the
government because of their political beliefs.
Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!!

Thousands of Americans ....


Best argument I can think of for being heavily armed... The Japs didn't
have much but chopsticks and the IWW members they rounded up at Bisbee
and sent to New Mexico were also without much weaponry. Only one deputy
was shot.

And how many Japanese would have died if they ALL had pistols
and hunting rifles ?
ALL of them. The right wing would have called it a "war" and
poured napalm and nerve gas over them
"Best argument" ever pulled out of an arse I've ever seen.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 21:54:23 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 22:28:11 -0300, Shadow wrote:

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s

*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?

No, I'm a doctor (retired). I once made a (full) auto Berreta
by jamming the firing pin so it didn't retract, but it was just a
"project". The thing was almost impossible to control and a complete
waste of ammo. So I "undid"it.

I was given a "Ruby" .32 auto that did that all by itself until I
cleaned up the sear. It was a magazine dump the first time I fired it.

+1 on a .25 (6.35mm) purse gun I once saw. The spring on the
firing pin had broken and the firing pin rusted into the "forward"
position. Can't remember the model. Czech browning-like. It was
already old 50 years ago.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 20:53:58 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 8:28 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:11:28 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

On 4/4/2019 4:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 14:22:52 -0500, Terry Coombs
wrote:

* Bod is one of those "useful idiots" that can't tell the difference .
He hears the word "auto" and automatically thinks every time you pull
the trigger the magazine gets emptied .
That IS the definition of "auto". The gun fires non-stop until
you take your finger off the trigger.
When a new cartridge is re-chambered but not fired it's called
a semi-auto.
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.
HTH
[]'s
*I know the difference , but many people don't . They think if "auto"
is part of the name that must mean full auto regardless of the "semi"
designation . You apparently don't know much about firearms . SOME semi
auto RIFLES are easily converted to full auto . Mostly those that were
originally designed to have that capability , such as the AK and AR
series - I dare you to convert a Remington model 742 ... Handguns are
not easily and in most cases impossible to convert . Again , those that
are easy were designed that way . Another fact , some conversions do
indeed cycle until the magazine is empty even if you let go of the
trigger . Generally those firearms that weren't originally designed to
be capable of full auto . For an AR conversion you must use the military
full auto bolt and a couple of other parts . Those are getting hard to
find ... I wonder why ? The rest you have to make yourself . Are you a
machinist ?
No, I'm a doctor (retired). I once made a (full) auto Berreta
by jamming the firing pin so it didn't retract, but it was just a
"project". The thing was almost impossible to control and a complete
waste of ammo. So I "undid"it.
[]'s

* That arm was never meant to fire from an unlocked breech , I'm
surprised you didn't get a face full of slide . How did you initiate the
firing sequence , with the slide release ?

Brazilian blowback .22. Yes, just let the slide go (and miss
the target).

Taurus still makes something similar, or did a while back:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd6MiCIsfl4

The older Berettas didn't even have a "safety lock" on the
firing pin, so if you dropped it, it would fire. And no safety catch
either.

This is a later model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_950

Mine had a "long" almost 4" barrel (dunno why the Wiki doesn't
mention that). I lost it in a "move". Not that I miss it much. It was
useless for plinking. The noise might have scared off a unarmed
burglar, but so would a firecracker.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 19:42:41 -0600, rbowman wrote:

On 04/04/2019 03:54 PM, Shadow wrote:
Criminals can easily convert semi-autos to auto. It's illegal,
but they ARE criminals. They often couple that with large capacity
magazines so the magazine is NOT emptied on a brief trigger-pull.

You have a lot of criminals with full auto firearms, do you?

Yes. They're called the "president and his men" now.
Bolsonaro doesn't trust the military, so he goes around with a
crowd of criminals as bodyguards.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 6:36:26 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 17:37:59 +0100, Bod wrote:

On 04/04/2019 17:21, wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:02:02 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Terry Coombs writes:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

ÂÂ* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE .

The vast majority are owned by ordinary americans, survivalists, and criminals.

What's your point? The military is composed of ordinary Americans too,
most with minimal training. A agree they have the weapons of mass
destruction but a government that turns that kind of indiscriminate
power against it's own population is going to lose support pretty
fast.
The same thing in the American spirit that makes us the most murdering
population in the western world will make us a pretty hard population
to subjugate. Bear in mind, we trained most of the insurgents in the
world, including the ones we could not beat with all of our military
might.

Second, the guns are useless when you run out of ammo; and you can't complete
with a government on that count.

As long as the government has ammo, you can get it. That is one
advantage in owning "military" calibers.

Third, you're not paying attention to recent world history. Show one example
where guns in the hands of the populace have overthrown their own government
without any aid from an external government (even the American Revolution was
provided arms and ammunition by the French).

Why do you think there would not be other countries lining up to
support an insurgency against an oppressive government here?


I believe that hunting weapons should be legal (bolt-action rifles,
limited-magazine shotguns). I'm less convinced about handguns, but could
support revolver possession. Not assault rifles, weapons that can easily
be converted into automatic weapons (e.g. bump stocks or modified semi-auto
handguns) or actual real automatic weapons.

The flaw in your logic is defining an assault weapon. We are also put
far to much emphasis on a very few murders. Most of the 11,000 murders
in the US are gang related and involve handguns. Rifles, all types,
assault or otherwise are not involved in as many murders as "bare
hands" killings. (AKA "personal weapons" in the UCR)
It is really just racists who put far more importance on white
suburban lives than inner city people of color who are pushing this
"assault weapon" bull****.
BTW you all seem to forget the first famous "active shooter" was
Charles Whitman who killed 17 people and wounded 30 more with that
benign bolt action rifle you speak of.1

25% of mass shooters used assault rifles, the majority of the rest
used either and auto rifle or an auto handgun.

... But mass shootings are a minuscule percentage of our murders, at
least in the sense you are talking about.

You say that like it's a good thing. It mostly just shows that we
have an unacceptably high murder rate from guns period that lowers
the percent that are mass shootings.




The media has had to expand "Mass shooting" to include 3 or 4 gang
bangers having a turf battle on some urban street corner. Even with
that it still pales in comparison to the single thug taking one in the
ear over some kind of drug beef.

That's true, but far too often it's not limited to just gang bangers
killing each other. Many times innocent bystanders are killed in
drive-bys and the like.




The police are even reluctant to attribute as many murders to the drug
war as are happening because it further points out their dismal
failure in that war.

On 05/04/2019 14:44, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 05:59:15 +0100, Bod wrote:

My main point is; why would joe public need an auto firing gun?

They don't. A pump action is fast enough for any legitimate
use, and can't be made "auto".
And a bolt action is sufficient for hunting.
A twelve bore shotgun loaded with buckshot will deter any
"home invaders", unless they have a death wish.

But it's a talking point for the guys that think their
pea-shooters will do anything against a rogue government.
"birth right" (until it's not - vis the American Orientals put in
concentration camps), "I'll shoot the tanks", "blow the nerve gas away
with my muzzle blast".

Sorry about the examples, I'm not a good mental mass debater.
[]'s.

You're actually talking sense.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 14:55:45 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"rbowman" wrote in message
...
On 04/04/2019 11:05 AM, Shadow wrote:
Over a hundred thousand Americans were rounded up by the
government and put in concentration camps.
Trumpologists: But they used chopsticks !!!

Thousands of Americans were jailed and persecuted by the
government because of their political beliefs.
Trumpologists: But they were communists and anarchists !!!

Thousands of Americans ....


Best argument I can think of for being heavily armed...

Didnt do the Black Panthers, Simbionese Liberation Army,
Koresh or Ruby Ridge any good. They ended up dead
rather than in jail.

The Japs didn't have much but chopsticks and the IWW members they rounded
up at Bisbee and sent to New Mexico were also without much weaponry. Only
one deputy was shot.

And if they had been heavily armed, they would have ended up dead.

The Vietnamese plan was it didn't matter how many of them we killed,
only how many of us they killed. They won that war in spite of the
fact that they lost almost every battle.

On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers.Â* Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

Â* What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of
"theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in
groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at
least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause
... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as
much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle ,
don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

"Frank" "frank wrote in message
...
On 4/4/2019 8:28 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
On 4/3/2019 7:48 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 17:25:39 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If you thing a handful of assault rifles in the peoples hands will have
any affect on an "oppressive government", you haven't been paying
attention
to recent world history.
Check your facts. Say America has 4% of the world's population and has
42% of the guns in the world. Ask Senator Feinstein.

Then read about the Oath Keepers. Guns are my natural right birth.

If you are offended, ask me if I give ****.

spit

What Scott doesn't realize or refuses to acknowledge is that a large
percentage of those arms are owned by people with military training and
COMBAT EXPERIENCE . You don't have to own your own tank to kill one of
"theirs" . And antipersonnel armaments rely on catching the "enemy" in
groups . Ask any 'Nam vet how well that worked . Plus the fact that at
least a percentage of current military will be sympathetic to the cause
... and will either refuse to fight or defect - with their gear and as
much armament as they can carry off . I don't own an AR type rifle ,
don't feel the need . But I support the rights of those who do .


Back during the cold war the Russians were very concerned that if they
invaded us that most of us were armed.

There was never any possibility of russia invading the USA like that.