from "family values" to "suv" american politics is full of buzz-words.
the apparent willingness of both the left and the right in america to embrace and use terms that are difficult or impossible to define has always amused me.
(of course, perhaps i'm just easily amused.
Hi Six,
Please don't misunderstand. This wasn't a thread about gun control per se. This was simply illustrative of the politico's fondness for coining and using terms that are difficult or impossible to define and "Assault weapon" was an easy example to show with pictures. The right in America is certainly guilty of basically the same thing.
from "family values" to "suv" american politics is full of buzz-words.
the apparent willingness of both the left and the right in america to embrace and use terms that are difficult or impossible to define has always amused me.
(of course, perhaps i'm just easily amused.
Six,
Under statute an "assualt weapon" is determined by:
1: Being semi-automatic
2. Accepting a detachable magazine
3. Possessing any two additonal proscribed features drawn from the list Abaddon quoted above.
The rifle in the first example (top picture) has a bayonet lug. Consequently, it is considered an "assualt weapon," while its twin (bottom picture) is not.
from "family values" to "suv" american politics is full of buzz-words.
the apparent willingness of both the left and the right in america to embrace and use terms that are difficult or impossible to define has always amused me.
(of course, perhaps i'm just easily amused.
Abaddon,
Your first statement was correct. ---- Both rifles have pistol grips and accept detachable magazines. (The rifle in the top picture happens to have a magazine fitted, while the magazine well is empty in the second example.) Therefore the addition of any one of the other forbidden items would make either of them "assualt weapons."
With that in mind, the small doo-dad under the front sight on the rifle in the top picture actually is the preban M16/AR15 bayonet mount. Also as you probably noticed, with the 24" barrel, (as opposed to a 16) it's rather useless for actually attaching a bayonet, and has evolved more into an attachment point for flashlights and other equipment.
*****
XQ: So sorry, I was actually trying to clarify to "non-gun people." For "gun people" stating that they had the same lower receiver was more than enough. (The lower receiver actually is the firearm under statute --- Everything else is an "accessory.")
Detachable magazines, which are manufactured and (usually) purchased separately are irrelavant in and of themselves in determining whether the firearm in question is an "assualt weapon." At issue is the ability of the firearm to accept a detachable magazine.
The magazine you see in the first example is detachable, and would attach just as happily to the rifle in the second example . Except for the bayonet lug, the two are exactly the same rifle.
*****
If making an issue out of an archaic throwback to the days of the pikeman in the middle ages seems capricious, arbitrary or irrelevant, I agree. Although the AR15 is ugly and looks very similar to the military M16, (which truly is an assualt rifle) it is no different in the performance of its true function (firing bullets) than a number of traditional sporting rifles with familiar wood stocks.
Tom
from "family values" to "suv" american politics is full of buzz-words.
the apparent willingness of both the left and the right in america to embrace and use terms that are difficult or impossible to define has always amused me.
(of course, perhaps i'm just easily amused.
From "family values" to "SUV" American politics is full of buzz-words. The apparent willingness of both the left and the right in America to embrace and use terms that are difficult or impossible to define has always amused me. (Of course, perhaps I'm just easily amused.)
For example, with suset of the VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1993 set for this fall, I wonder if after a decade, anyone truly knows what an "assualt weapon" really is.
Below are pictures of two rifles. One is a banned "assualt weapon" and one is perfectly legal.
Both are AR15's. Both are semi-automatic. Both fire the 5.56 NATO round (Remington .223) Both have the same after-market stock. Both have the same finish. Both have the same lower receivers. Both take the same capacity magazines. Both have the same muzzle brake.
However this is not a trick question. The offending feature of the banned "assualt weapon" is visible
Any takers?
were any of you here, or perhaps on the old h20 forum, when the poster known as "you know" made all those crazy predictions?
there used to even be an exclusive site maintained by someone who kept an up-to-date record of all the predictions this screwball made ... all of which failed to come true, of course.
does anyone know if that site still exists?
Although skally didn't exactly provide the links you were looking for, she was one of the old-timers on the old H20, as was I. H20 was THE premier board for discussion about JW issues before it died due to over-moderation. Some of the most lively debates between JW apologizes and ex-JWs that have ever happened, happened there.Most of us (I can't speak for Skally, but I'd bet she'd agree) who have been around longer than a few years would call that board the golden age of debate and information passing. No one would dare ask a question like "what's your favorite pizza topping?" without getting a decent and deserved drubbing over there.
There was definitely an excitement as AJWR was winding down and H2O was starting up that hasn't been duplicated since. I think the internet was considerably "newer" to everyone in 1995-1996 and a lot of JW's that had suppressed their doubts for a very long time were discovering an environment where they could finally speak their mind.
this is very interesting and i believe there is something in these sweeteners.. .
please read .
subject: all diet soda drinkers beware .
I noticed that the Coca-Cola website attempts to confuse the issue by pretending to answer concerns over phosphoric acid and talking about phosphorus instead.
http://www2.coca-cola.com/contactus/myths_rumors/ingredients_osteoporosis.html
The two are not the same thing.
Phosphorus, (P) is an element. Like iron, it is also an essential mineral. Most of us don't get enough to begin with and there's hardly any in soft drinks anyway. Too much phosphorus can be a bad thing, just like iron overload can be a bad thing, but both of these conditions are indicative of something else wrong. Elevated phosphorus levels in the blood are commonly associated with kidney disfunction.
Phosphoric acid (PO(OH)3) is not naturally found in foods. It is an additive given to give certain foods a "sharp" taste. The "bite" you feel in the back of your throat when you drink cola too fast is because of the phosphoric acid. Although there is a huge amount of quackery on the web, there have been credible recent studies suggesting that excessive intake of soda pop may lead to decreased bone density in women.
e.g.
www.medscape.com/viewarticle/461898
http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/092503Tucker.htm
one of the questions in the uk at the moment is whether we shoudl have identity cards or not.. the government, who wants them, claims they will "help to prevent terrorism".
spain and the usa both have identity cards and they have had big terrorist attacks.
it's never been explained exactly how they will stop terrorists.. my personal opinion is that they are just another government play to control people, another form of tax (you can bet it will cost us to get them) and i have my doubts as to whether the government could run a large scale it project of that magnitude (given it's track record) and whether the estimated 3bn won't end up many years late and at least 10bn over-budget.
plmkrzy,
(Hi btw) In many ways the SSN does identify us from cradle to grave as the saying goes, but we don't have to carry it with us at all, certainly not for such mundane things as driving a car. We are never asked to show it to law enforcement as a medium of identification ---hell, we don't even have to show it to vote. It doesn't seem comparable to the proposed UK ID card, at least not to me.
Tom
one of the questions in the uk at the moment is whether we shoudl have identity cards or not.. the government, who wants them, claims they will "help to prevent terrorism".
spain and the usa both have identity cards and they have had big terrorist attacks.
it's never been explained exactly how they will stop terrorists.. my personal opinion is that they are just another government play to control people, another form of tax (you can bet it will cost us to get them) and i have my doubts as to whether the government could run a large scale it project of that magnitude (given it's track record) and whether the estimated 3bn won't end up many years late and at least 10bn over-budget.
Spain and the USA both have identity cards and they have had big terrorist attacks.
We do? Hmmmm. [Searching wallet] I seem to have a problem here........I've got my driver's license, a blood donor ID card and a couple of credit cards, my Social Security card has been lost for over 20 years. ---I'm going to be in deep when an officer wants to see my identity card.........
okay, i don't know about the rest of you, but when i read any wt publications (even on here), i fall into a state where i'm reading, but not paying attention to what i'm reading.
i used to do it during watchtower studies, and when i was studying, i fought to pay attention to the material being discussed.
it just seems automatic, that i completely shut my mind off when reading wt publications.. what about you?
That really sounds scary -- almost like taking in information while in somethin akin to a hypnotic state. We all have defense mechanisms against the power of outside suggestions --- call it a built-in BS filter or whatever you want.
I think what you describe would completely bypass your mental defenses.
were any of you here, or perhaps on the old h20 forum, when the poster known as "you know" made all those crazy predictions?
there used to even be an exclusive site maintained by someone who kept an up-to-date record of all the predictions this screwball made ... all of which failed to come true, of course.
does anyone know if that site still exists?
Farkel summed it up....
October, 1996 -- Global economic collapse
October, 1997 -- Global economic collapse
October, 1998 -- Global economic collapse
October, 1999 -- Global economic collapse
October, 2000 -- The Y2K bug would rear its head in January and by October, we would be hitting the bottom of the downward spiral
October, 2001 -- Global economic collapse
...Oh and anyone who doubted any of this was to keep in mind that Jehovah is the true master of deception.
