I don't agree with the NRA

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Do you have a reading disability or just dishonest?

That's good coming from the king of "what? I didn't say that" Go back to bed and sleep it off bud. Lemme guess, you weren't talking about what happened at Kent state... right? I mean it's pure coinkydin that you used the 81 yard number.. Had nothing to do with Kent... I'm gonna start calling you Top. Not because you might have reached a high enlisted rank... but because you spin like one...

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by cabmando

That's good coming from the king of "what? I didn't say that" Go back to bed and sleep it off bud. Lemme guess, you weren't talking about what happened at Kent state... right? I mean it's pure coinkydin that you used the 81 yard number.. Had nothing to do with Kent... I'm gonna start calling you Top. Not because you might have reached a high enlisted rank... but because you spin like one...

It is bad enough that you chose to give yourself license to rewrite what I posted to suit your argument...but to follow with an insult when I point out that you did is worse. It would have been easier to accept your mistake and move on...as it only seemed an honest mistake at first.

[Bill Douglas]

Anyway... Back to talking guns. I know at one time there was a debate in the US as to whether removing the gas (thingie) in an AR15 makes it legally not an outlawed semi-auto. Do you guys know what the outcome of this was. I know it makes it a slidebolt manually loading gun, but I'm talking about legally.

The reason I ask is NZ is trying to follow Australia and outlaw semi auto rifles over .22 rimfire size, particuarly military style (including AR15) semi autos.

[Tobra]

Probably won't get to keep it Bill, even if it were technically a single shot with the gas system disabled or removed.

There is an adapter to make a .223 into a .22 LR, which would be allowed, maybe, but I doubt they would let it slide.

[Bill Douglas]

My thoughts too Tobra. there are going to be some very sad people around here.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Kent State was a bunch of spoiled brat, uber liberal protesters with absolutely no support from patriotic Americans. It has, however, served as a bit of a rallying cry against what can happen when National Guard, or other troops, are illegally deployed against American citizens.

I thought about your comment for a little while and couldn't help but think it kind of goes to my point that if it comes down to it and gun owners choose to take up arms against an oppressive government that they better be able to make a damn persuasive argument. Like them or not, agree with them or not, they were protesting a government they felt was unjust and oppressive.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by fintstone

If you shoot at a person 10 feet away, your bullet just might kill someone 81 yards (or a mile) away. Do you really believe they were shooting/aiming at targets almost a football field away? Doesn't look peaceful to me:

Originally Posted by fintstone

It is bad enough that you chose to give yourself license to rewrite what I posted to suit your argument...but to follow with an insult when I point out that you did is worse. It would have been easier to accept your mistake and move on...as it only seemed an honest mistake at first.

Yeah... LOL

Oh.. and that video you posted... says they were indeed aiming at those people 81 yards away. The narrator clearly states that 7 of the Guardsmen were indeed aiming at the crowd. Is there anything else I can clear up before you decide to try and say I'm lying about what you wrote again? You might want to head back to PARF.. your nonsense might work with someone there.

[tabs]

Originally Posted by fintstone

LOL. I was thinking the same about you.

The difference is that I know my marbles rattle around, you don't.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Yeah... LOL

Oh.. and that video you posted... says they were indeed aiming at those people 81 yards away. The narrator clearly states that 7 of the Guardsmen were indeed aiming at the crowd. Is there anything else I can clear up before you decide to try and say I'm lying about what you wrote again? You might want to head back to PARF.. your nonsense might work with someone there.

There were people a lot closer than 81 yards. How does the narrator, decades later, decide who was aiming where...when we do not even know which soldier/s actually shot the protestors? Of course he was probably talking about when the soldiers were on Blanket hill (not where they actually shot from). You are grasping for straws.

Sure looks closer than 81 yards to me. And that is likely not the closest person, just the closest that was hit.



In fact, since the closest victim hit was about 60 ft away and the farthest about 390 ft...only a fool would think that no one was close than 81 yards...or that the soldiers were aiming at folks 81 yards away but accidentally hit ones 60 ft away...as all four that were killed were far, far behind those that were wounded about 20 yards away. Clearly they had to shoot through the closer crowd to hit those at a distance. A 100 yard standing kill shot through a crowd by a scared NG kid is a lot less likely than just bad luck by someone in the distant crowd.



While Kent State served the purpose of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) very well, what it really showed that surrounding about a hundred raw recruits by thousands of radical students that appear read to rumble...is a pretty lethal combination.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally Posted by cabmando

I thought about your comment for a little while and couldn't help but think it kind of goes to my point that if it comes down to it and gun owners choose to take up arms against an oppressive government that they better be able to make a damn persuasive argument. Like them or not, agree with them or not, they were protesting a government they felt was unjust and oppressive.

I think the scenario in which most of us think our personal arms would be of use would be one of wide-spread unrest, or dare I say "revolution". Kent State was just a handful of students, with little support for their cause in our broader society. Envision, on the other hand, millions of Americans across the entire country saying "enough".

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

My thoughts too Tobra. there are going to be some very sad people around here.

Worst part is it won't mitigate the problem they ostensibly address in the slightest.

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

I think the scenario in which most of us think our personal arms would be of use would be one of wide-spread unrest, or dare I say "revolution". Kent State was just a handful of students, with little support for their cause in our broader society. Envision, on the other hand, millions of Americans across the entire country saying "enough".

I truly don't even consider the US Armed Forces turning against the citizens. It has happened in the past, but I don't think it will ever happen again. General Douglas MacArthur, yea that one, ordered his troops to fire on civilians.

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

I do think civil unrest like the Watts riots or the LA riots are more likely, but it is a very remote likelihood around here.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Bill Douglas

Anyway... Back to talking guns. I know at one time there was a debate in the US as to whether removing the gas (thingie) in an AR15 makes it legally not an outlawed semi-auto. Do you guys know what the outcome of this was. I know it makes it a slidebolt manually loading gun, but I'm talking about legally.

The reason I ask is NZ is trying to follow Australia and outlaw semi auto rifles over .22 rimfire size, particuarly military style (including AR15) semi autos.

Basically, you can replace the gas block with one that is plugged, and remove the gas tube. This will make the rifle a "bolt action". You will cycle the action by pulling back the charging handle each time.

Not sure if this will fly in New Zealand. But it is supposed to make a rifle compliant in California.

[Bill Douglas]

Excellent, thanks James.

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by fintstone

If you shoot at a person 10 feet away, your bullet just might kill someone 81 yards (or a mile) away. Do you really believe they were shooting/aiming at targets almost a football field away?

Originally Posted by fintstone

There were people a lot closer than 81 yards. How does the narrator, decades later, decide who was aiming where...when we do not even know which soldier/s actually shot the protestors? Of course he was probably talking about when the soldiers were on Blanket hill (not where they actually shot from). You are grasping for straws.

Sure looks closer than 81 yards to me. And that is likely not the closest person, just the closest that was hit.

In fact, since the closest victim hit was about 60 ft away and the farthest about 390 ft...only a fool would think that no one was close than 81 yards...or that the soldiers were aiming at folks 81 yards away but accidentally hit ones 60 ft away...as all four that were killed were far, far behind those that were wounded about 20 yards away. Clearly they had to shoot through the closer crowd to hit those at a distance. A 100 yard standing kill shot through a crowd by a scared NG kid is a lot less likely than just bad luck by someone in the distant crowd.


Kent State served the purpose of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) very well, what it really showed that surrounding about a hundred raw recruits by thousands of radical students that appear read to rumble...is a pretty lethal combination.

Glad we could clear up that your initial ass..ertion was indeed wrong. Moving on now.

[Rawknees'Turbo]

I feel like I should bring out the thong stuffing bills, with all the mud wrestling going on in the last few pages of this thread! Love it!

[cabmandone]

Originally Posted by Rawknees'Turbo

I feel like I should bring out the thong stuffing bills, with all the mud wrestling going on in the last few pages of this thread! Love it!

Getchu some!

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Glad we could clear up that your initial ass..ertion was indeed wrong. Moving on now.

It seems that I was absolutely correct. Only an idiot would believe that shooting at a person 10 feet away with an M1 might not hit a person farther away. Of course you dishonestly pretend that I claimed that there were people 10 feet away...when I did not...as I really do not know.. That said, I did know there were people a lot closer than 81 yards away and proved you wrong. But even so, there may have been folks even closer than 20 yards...and were just not hit with a bullet.

It was pretty poor logic for you to assume that the closest dead person at 81 yards was the closest person to the NG (now you know that one of the victims that did not die was about 20 yards away). It is just as poor logic to assume that the closest person hit with a bullet was the closest person to the shooters.

All my assertions were absolutely accurate. Give it up.

[Rawknees'Turbo]

Originally Posted by cabmando

Getchu some!

I am sufficiently entertained sitting ringside and watching you and FintIsStoneD attempt to virtual-batter each others buttochs into states of baboon-like redness! Thanks Bro(s)!

[tabs]

Originally Posted by Rawknees'Turbo

I am sufficiently entertained sitting ringside and watching you and FintIsStoneD attempt to virtual-batter each others buttochs into states of baboon-like redness! Thanks Bro(s)!

I like spanking...especially my own monkey.


And so does Fint.....with all his fanciful renditions of events transpired. Pointless constructions of fairytale castles in the air.