Uh-oh

Status
Not open for further replies.
When it comes to the concern of personal safety, conservative pundit G. Gordon Liddy suggests the use of a revolver, not a semi-automatic military rifle. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you fear for your physical safety, a revolver will clearly be able to stop an intruder. The difference is important; if you were to have some kind of hair trigger firearm you could easily unload an entire clip of ammunition, the mistakes could be horrific. However, anyone who’s shot a revolver can tell you that you’ve mentally committed to shooting because of how much pressure you must apply. Liddy noted this benefit as a measure of safety against mistakes in the home. Logical.
Click to expand...

....so "semi-automatic military rifles" have some kind of hair trigger making them more uncontrollable than a revolver?....and revolvers don't have hair triggers?.........very interesting, I learn so much reading editorial pages.
 
The first revolver I ever fired was a hair-pin trigger. It actually went off before I wanted it to and the shot went into the dirt. The first semi-auto I ever fired had much heavier trigger pull.
 
I love reading opinion pieces written by people who clearly have very little actual knowledge of the subject under discussion. You know, I'm not a mechanic but I have changed my oil a few times. I think I'll write up a review on the pros and cons of the Dodge Hemi versus a Ford V8. I'm sure it'll be detailed and insightful...

But you know, they published his article on the assault weapons ban so it MUST be true!
 
stalks that are foldable for concealment
Click to expand...

Simple mistake when typing or big pile o' ignorance?

Those components include, pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, facilitating shooting from the waist
Click to expand...

Of course no one EVER shot a long gun from the waist before the pistol grip era.


Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with the thought of a rack of silencers and other tools of human assignation being sold next to ping-pong tables in Wal-Mart sporting goods?
Click to expand...

as·sig·na·tion Pronunciation (sg-nshn)
n.
1. The act of assigning.
2. Something assigned, especially an allotment.
3. An appointment for a meeting between lovers; a tryst


Well, color me perplexed. I think he is confusing marital aids with martial aids.


Regardless of what he meant, no I'm not uncomfortable at all. Of course I am not some easily frightened mouse who gets skittish at the thought of weapons.
 
Quote:
Does anyone else feel a little uncomfortable with the thought of a rack of silencers and other tools of human assignation being sold next to ping-pong tables in Wal-Mart sporting goods?


as·sig·na·tion Pronunciation (sg-nshn)
n.
1. The act of assigning.
2. Something assigned, especially an allotment.
3. An appointment for a meeting between lovers; a tryst
Click to expand...

Some trysts could benefit from the use of a silencer.
 
Geez, where do I begin?

Guns banned by the law all contain multiple assault weapons features, it is not just the fact that they simply semi-automatic.

…The weapons are designed for easy, rapid, and widespread fire. It’s simple; they are made to kill as many people as quickly and easily as possible
Click to expand...

Nope. They fire just as fast as any other semi-auto. That is, only as fast as the trigger can be pulled. And what do they mean by “wide spread” fire. Perhaps they don’t know what a shotgun pattern is. And how is firing a round from a so called “assault weapon” any easier than firing a round from a hunting rifles.

Some of the different components of banned weapons make them significantly more lethal. Those components include, pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, facilitating shooting from the waist, stalks that are foldable for concealment, and threaded barrels designed for silencers.
Click to expand...

1. A rifle without a pistol grip is just as easy to hold at the waist an fire as a gun with a pistol grip. In fact, I would rather someone shooting at me be holding the gun “at the hip” rather than actually aiming it at me.

2. Stock (or in their words stalks) that telescope or fold make the weapon smaller than my concealed carry handgun?

3. Silencers. Note to anti-gunners. Most silencers don’t eliminate all sound they suppress that amount of sound made. Plus, suppressors are already NFA restricted items. What logic is this fool using to think that because the ability to use a silencer will make the silencer itself any easier to get. This is the same argument with “grenade launchers.” Just because a rifle is equipped with a post that holds a grenade doesn’t make the grenade legal to run out to Walmart and buy.


How it works is as follows, a cop searches a house on a warrant for drugs, no drugs are found, but a banned assault weapon is sitting under the suspect’s bed. Bingo. They’re going to jail and the gun is off the street. If these weapons wouldn’t be banned, the officer would be on his way with the Uzi simply returned to the owner.
Click to expand...

1. A criminal that hides his drugs most likely hides his illegal guns too.
2. It is far more likely that a person whose house is being searched on a drug warrant isn’t legally allowed to posses any guns (legal or banned) in the first place. Banned features aren’t going to affect this person’s who isn’t allowed to have any type of firearm.

if you were to have some kind of hair trigger firearm you could easily unload an entire clip of ammunition, the mistakes could be horrific.
Click to expand...

A “hair trigger” when engaged still only ‘unloads’ a single round. This attempt at logic is horrific
 
Zen21Tao beat me to it, and was more accurate.

However, I'll leave up what I said anyway.

Justin, it is my understanding from the first paragraph (My decipher'er may not be accurate), that this was somewhere around mid 2004.

"The Senate renewed the historic 1994 ban on assault rifles by a thin margin of 52 for to 47 against. In another vote of 53 to 46 the bill past through denying gun shows the ability to sell firearms without doing any form of back round checks. Both bills are a continued step in the right direction concerning gun laws in the United States."

The Senate indeed renewed the ban last year, but the House didn't, thus neither bill made it to the President for signature. I didn't read more than the first paragraph due to the countless grammatical and spelling errors. Perhaps he's trying to continue dumbing down his audience.
 
MY LETTTER TO THEM

http://keystoneonline.com/story.asp?Art_id=911

TO
[email protected]

RE: many errors in anti gun rant you printed
To: [email protected]




http://keystoneonline.com/story.asp?Art_id=911
The writer is in college? Why can't he spell stock?
What does assignation mean in relation to firearms?
I expect better editorials from freshman high school kids!

The writer is also ignorant of firearm laws (no wallmart in America has silencers for sale although I wish they did) and firearms in general, a "hair trigger" can be on a revolver as well as a semi auto.

Also I am a vegetarian and I do not hunt, I do however own many guns including AK47's and AR15's both are reasonably accurate. The bullet goes where I aim
so either he is lying or he is stupid, I suspect the latter.

So being that I am not a hunter is supposed to mean that I have given up my right to own a gun?

Oh and your common hunting rifle may also be shot from the hip it is probably more powerful the my AR15. I don't however expect the writer to know the difference between .223 & 30 06
 
Fella's;

The article is further evidence that the N.E.A. is not doing this country any favors. At least I'm presuming that the author of that piece is purporting to have had an education.

900F
 
Before anyone goes writing a rebuttal including insults to the original writer's spelling and grammar, you might want to check your own letter. Just sayin'....
 
Liquid Tension, right again!

:eek: :D :neener:
looks like someone found an English major to stick up for them....I deserved it of course
Dear sir,

The editorial you refer to did indeed have
several mistakes, as you so
kindly point out. And yes, there are a few
inaccuracies in it as
well. However, may I gently point out that the
students that write for
The Keystone are just that--students. They are
still learning the
craft of journalism, as are the student editors.
They try diligently,
and while they sometimes miss the mark--as this
editorial did--that in
no way diminishes the effort they put into each
article.

We appreciate your readership, and your reply.
However, since you were
so generous in pointing out our errors, allow us
the same kindness.

In your e-mail, you mention "wallmart." We don't
have "wallmarts" in
Pennsylvania. However, we do frequent
"Wal-Marts."

Also, your e-mail was rife with sentence
fragments, and you suffer from
an egregious lack of punctuation, sir. Bear with
me, won't you?

"Also I am a vegetarian and I do not hunt, I do
however own many guns
including AK47's and AR15's both are reasonably
accurate. The bullet
goes where I aim so either he is lying or he is
stupid, I suspect the
latter." (THIS PASSAGE WOULD HAVE GREATLY
BENEFITTED FROM PUNCTUATION.
ALLOW ME TO DEMONSTRATE. "Also, I am a
vegetarian, and I do not hunt.
I do, however, own many guns, including AK-47s
and AR-15s. Both are
reasonably accurate. The bullet goes where I
aim, so either he is
lying or he is stupid. I suspect the latter."
SEE HOW THAT FLOWS?)

"So being that I am not a hunter is supposed to
mean that I have given
up my right to own a gun? Oh and your common
hunting rifle may also be
shot from the hip it is probably more powerful
the my AR15. I don't
however expect the writer to know the difference
between .223 & 30 06"
(THIS PASSAGE ALSO WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM
SOME PUNCTUATION, USED
APPROPRIATELY. PLEASE, INDULGE ME AGAIN. "So,
being that I am not a
hunter, is that supposed to mean that I have
given up my right to own a
gun? Oh, and your common hunting rifle may also
be shot from the hip.
It is probably more powerful than my AR-15. I
don't, however, expect
the writer to know the difference between .223
and 30.06." THERE.
ISN'T THAT BETTER?)

Sadly, sir, I expect better from freshmen high
school kids.

But thanks for reading The Keystone, sir. Take
care.

-Warmly,
The Keystone
 
[Nelson Muntz] HAHA [/Nelson Muntz]


Though the smartass that replied still did not know enough to put a dash in 30-06 instead of a decimal point.
 
Those apposed to the ban....
Click to expand...
olol.
Funny guy.
stalks that are foldable for concealment
Click to expand...
olol.
Some of the different components of banned weapons make them significantly more lethal. Those components include, pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, facilitating shooting from the waist,
Click to expand...
Because, as movies have taught us, hip shots are not only more accurate, but more deadly.

When it comes to the concern of personal safety, conservative pundit G. Gordon Liddy suggests the use of a revolver, not a semi-automatic military rifle. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you fear for your physical safety, a revolver will clearly be able to stop an intruder. The difference is important; if you were to have some kind of hair trigger firearm you could easily unload an entire clip of ammunition, the mistakes could be horrific. However, anyone who’s shot a revolver can tell you that you’ve mentally committed to shooting because of how much pressure you must apply. Liddy noted this benefit as a measure of safety against mistakes in the home. Logical.
Click to expand...
*** did that have to do with anything? Is that an argument against rifles with military cosmetics? That a newbie gun user would find a revolver safer to wield in a home invasion and thus proves that the AWB was a good thing? Illogical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top