Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 5/23/2003 11:13:41 AM EDT
DO NOT HOTLINK! http://www.vpc.org/studies/hoseone.htm CRC
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:20:32 AM EDT
Tom is so full of himself.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:24:30 AM EDT
They're accurate, but they're made for firing indiscriminately over a wide area. What an asshole. I'd like to show him a REAL bullet hose. [50] [heavy]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:25:39 AM EDT
4. However, this is a distinction without a difference in terms of killing power. Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire.
View Quote
I am confused, does this mean they want to ban all semiautomatics and repeal the NFA act for full auto??[;D]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:26:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 11:27:00 AM EDT by photoman]
I love how they get all over spray and pray shooting as if it's so bad, I mean really if you want to kill a lot of people quickly spray and pray is not the way to go. You'll miss way more than you'll hit. But i do want to know what the hell the people a VPC are smokin cuz that has got to be some good stuff to make them go that far into lala land.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:29:49 AM EDT
In the words of Dogbert: "BAH!"
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:35:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 11:37:53 AM EDT by Gator]
What a frickin' nitwit. It is full of so many contradictions it sounds like it could have been written by a third grader. 1. There are virtually no significan differences between civvy versions and military versions. 2&3. There is a significant difference, military weapons are full auto. 4. Distinction without difference - most experts agree semi auto is more accurate, thus more lethal than full auto. 5,6,7&8. They have the features for "indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed." Well, what the hell is it? They say there isn't any real difference. Oh well they are really different, they can spray fire. But they are more deadly because semi auto fire is more accurate and deadly than spray-firing. They need to be banned because they are capable deadly spray-firing. Do I have it right?? Cuz now I'm confused. [:\]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:45:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:46:11 AM EDT
.... Where to begin...
This study documents the following 10 important key points. 1. Semiautomatic assault weapons (like AK and AR-15 assault rifles and UZI and MAC assault pistols) are civilian versions of military assault weapons. There are virtually no significant differences between them.
View Quote
Accurate so far...
2. Military assault weapons are "machine guns." That is, they are capable of fully automatic fire. A machine gun will continue to fire as long as the trigger is held down until the ammunition magazine is empty.
View Quote
Also accurate. Perhaps he needs to send this to the dolt Sheriff in Broward County, Florida.
3. Civilian assault weapons are not machine guns. They are semiautomatic weapons. (Since 1986 federal law has banned the sale to civilians of new machine guns.) The trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled separately for each round fired. It is a mistake to call civilian assault weapons "automatic weapons" or "machine guns."
View Quote
[red]THEN WHY THE FUCK DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION AND ITS ALLIES CONSTANTLY CALL THEM THAT, ASSHOLE![/red]
4. However, this is a distinction without a difference in terms of killing power. Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire. 5. The distinctive "look" of assault weapons is not cosmetic. It is the visual result of specific functional design decisions. Military assault weapons were designed and developed for a specific military purpose—laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area.
View Quote
Like California_Kid said. I guess our weapons are specifically designed to hose down an area with lethal pin-point accuracy. [rolleyes]
6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.
View Quote
Define "traditional". Define "sporting gun". Also, you say that deadly spray-firing is a characteristic of fully-automatic military weapons, yet you admit that civilian weapons are incapable of full-auto. So how then does a semiautomatic weapon spray-fire?
7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.
View Quote
Fine. SO what? The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting or sporting. It's about defending ourselves against vermin you politicians keep releasing to the streets, or sending against our liberties.
8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose.
View Quote
Ahem. Pistol grips are popular because they are comfortable and allow a better control of the weapon. Contact you nearest fellow-socialist in OSHA and ask him. Also, shooting from the hip is inherently innacurate, so I guess that's okay, by your own argument...
9. Unfortunately, most of the design features listed in the 1994 federal ban—such as bayonet mounts, grenade launchers, silencers, and flash suppressors—have nothing to do with why assault weapons are so deadly. As a result, the gun industry has easily evaded the ban by simply tinkering with these "bells and whistles" while keeping the functional design features listed above.
View Quote
[red][b]THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU AND YOUR ILK PASS THE CURRENT AWB? ARE YOU ADMITTING THAT THE NRA WAS RIGHT TEN YEARS AGO, AND THAT THE AWB WAS AND IS A COMPLETE FARCE?[/red][/b]
10. Although the gun lobby today argues that there is no such thing as civilian assault weapons, the gun industry, the National Rifle Association, gun magazines, and others in the gun lobby enthusiastically described these civilian versions as "assault rifles," "assault pistols," "assault-type," and "military assault" weapons to boost civilian assault-weapon sales throughout the 1980s. The industry and its allies only began to use the semantic argument that a "true" assault weapon is a machine gun after civilian assault weapons turned up in inordinate numbers in the hands of drug traffickers, criminal gangs, mass murderers, and other dangerous criminals.
View Quote
The FBI's own numbers indicate that the civilian versions of these weapons are used in a miniscule percentage of all gun crimes. Drug traffickers can and do afford the REAL THING, which are already illegal (really effective law, eh?), criminal gangs don't use them because they are difficult to hide and EXPENSIVE in comparison to other firearms, mass murderers normally use knives, clubs, etc., and other dangerous criminals also use an unbelievable array of weapons that dwarfs the numbers of "assault weapons" used in crimes. As is always the case with these scumbags, they wrap the lies in a thin veneer of truth, just to make it palatable to the ignorant masses. I honestly don't think it's going to work this time. There was no groundswell before, and now with terrorism on the march, most people seem to have woken up to the idea that it's better for the good guys to have access to similar weapons than the terrorists, instead of being unarmed sheep.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:46:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 11:48:09 AM EDT by photoman]
I think we here should just take there propaganda and fix it up, with some real facts. Besides who knows more about "assault weapons" those of us who use them and own them or a bunch of gungrabbers.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 11:50:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Gator: What a frickin' nitwit. It is full of so many contradictions it sounds like it could have been written by a third grader. 1. There are virtually no significan differences between civvy versions and military versions. 2&3. There is a significant difference, military weapons are full auto. 4. Distinction without difference - most experts agree semi auto is more accurate, thus more lethal than full auto. 5,6,7&8. They have the features for "indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed." Well, what the hell is it? They say there isn't any real difference. Oh well they are really different, they can spray fire. But they are more deadly because semi auto fire is more accurate and deadly than spray-firing. They need to be banned because they are capable deadly spray-firing. Do I have it right?? Cuz now I'm confused. [:\]
View Quote
Don't worry about it. I'm confused by their contradictions, too. In fact, I was about to post pretty much exactly the same thing you did. (Thanks for saving me the typing [:D] ) I really wish these idiots would pick one argument and stick with it.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:07:53 PM EDT
I ain't be pimpin nun dem hoses......
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:13:25 PM EDT
Why isn't #9 being pointed out more by you guys[?] They just admitted they're last effort was worthless.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:16:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MillerSHO: Why isn't #9 being pointed out more by you guys[?] They just admitted they're last effort was worthless.
View Quote
Ahem..... [Zaphod points discretely at the second red sentence in his last post.]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:24:47 PM EDT
YAY IVE GOT A BULLET HOSE!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:45:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zaphod:
Originally Posted By MillerSHO: Why isn't #9 being pointed out more by you guys[?] They just admitted they're last effort was worthless.
View Quote
Ahem..... [Zaphod points discretely at the second red sentence in his last post.]
View Quote
Zap I saw yours, I was just wondering why the general reactions on this thread aren't pointing them out. In my eyes, #9 is grounds to prove on why another AWB would be pointless for the peps sitting on the fence. (Hell, or even the left if they can take that much logical thinking)
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 1:32:33 PM EDT
These people (if I can can call them that), are really starting to go off the deep end. Could you just see one of them testifying before a Congressional committee?... "Well, Senator. We believe these bullet hoses should be banned because they can be easily spray fired from the hip". "We have photographic evidence of Israeli commandos hosing down a Palestinian training camp to prove it can be done". Although I have to admit "Bullet Hose Ban" rolls off the tongue a little easier.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 1:42:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 1:45:38 PM EDT by jrzy]
[size=4][red][b]Violence Policy Center=FUCKING IDIOTS!!!! Hows this for demeaning womem? "exposing gun industry marketing to women" [/b][/red][/size=4]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 1:54:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gator: What a frickin' nitwit. It is full of so many contradictions it sounds like it could have been written by a third grader. 1. There are virtually no significan differences between civvy versions and military versions. 2&3. There is a significant difference, military weapons are full auto. 4. Distinction without difference - most experts agree semi auto is more accurate, thus more lethal than full auto. 5,6,7&8. They have the features for "indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed." Well, what the hell is it? They say there isn't any real difference. Oh well they are really different, they can spray fire. But they are more deadly because semi auto fire is more accurate and deadly than spray-firing. They need to be banned because they are capable deadly spray-firing. Do I have it right?? Cuz now I'm confused. [:\]
View Quote
Man did you hit the nail on the head!
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 2:01:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 3:49:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 3:50:20 PM EDT by Andreuha]
better than shotgun shoving... Take all the active anti-gunners, make sure they stay unarmed (daily checkups), and force them to live in horrible crime-ridden neighborhoods. After a few months, ask them if they still prefer to be law-abiding and un-armed in face of ruthless criminals who (illegaly) own basically anything they want. (edited for spelling)
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 4:44:16 PM EDT
[b]3. Civilian assault weapons are not machine guns. They are semiautomatic weapons. (Since 1986 federal law has banned the sale to civilians of new machine guns.) The trigger of a semiautomatic weapon must be pulled separately for each round fired. It is a mistake to call civilian assault weapons "automatic weapons" or "machine guns."[/b] VPC "However we like to call them that because the truth really has never been much of a concern to us. Besides, MACHINE GUN, is much more threatening than, "semi automatic rifle" and if it's more threatening we can get more of the sheeple afraid and they will send us MONEY." [b] 4. However, this is a distinction without a difference in terms of killing power. Civilian semiautomatic assault weapons incorporate all of the functional design features that make assault weapons so deadly. They are arguably more deadly than military versions, because most experts agree that semiautomatic fire is more accurate—and thus more lethal—than automatic fire. [/b] VPC "Yes they incorporate ALL of the functional design features, well, of course as we said before they aren't full auto, but that's really an insignificant feature and to argue our way out of the corner we're in we'd like to point out that a blow job isn't sex and you aren't smoking weed if you don't suck it deep into your lungs". [b]5. The distinctive "look" of assault weapons is not cosmetic. It is the visual result of specific functional design decisions. Military assault weapons were designed and developed for a specific military purpose—laying down a high volume of fire over a wide killing zone, also known as "hosing down" an area.[/b] VPC "We've never actually heard anyone who knew a fucking thing about the subject of military weapons use the term "hosing down" an area, but we thought it sounded like something whacko right wing gun nuts would say." [b]6. Civilian assault weapons keep the specific functional design features that make this deadly spray-firing easy. These functional features also distinguish assault weapons from traditional sporting guns.[/b] VPC "You'll note that the military weapons are equipped with an adjustable "bullet nozzle" at the end of that long pipe thingy that the explosive shells travel down. This allows the user to adjust the "hosing" to a fine, medium or heavy spray." [b]7. The most significant assault weapon functional design features are: (1) ability to accept a high-capacity ammunition magazine, (2) a rear pistol or thumb-hole grip, and, (3) a forward grip or barrel shroud. Taken together, these are the design features that make possible the deadly and indiscriminate "spray-firing" for which assault weapons are designed. None of them are features of true hunting or sporting guns.[/b] VPC "These weapons have those deadly "pistol grips" and a forward barrel shroud which is usually imported from the Italian city of Turin and gives the heavy spray of bullets certain magical powers." [b] 8. "Spray-firing" from the hip, a widely recognized technique for the use of assault weapons in certain combat situations, has no place in civil society. Although assault weapon advocates claim that "spray-firing" and shooting from the hip with such weapons is never done, numerous sources (including photographs and diagrams) show how the functional design features of assault weapons are used specifically for this purpose.[/b] VPC "Many military types are taught the deadly "spray firing from the hip" technique in basic training. This should not however be confused with the also deadly "hosing" or was it the "hoser" technique. We have seen photographs of this in many movies staring various action heroes". [b] 10. Although the gun lobby today argues that there is no such thing as civilian assault weapons, the gun industry, the National Rifle Association, gun magazines, and others in the gun lobby enthusiastically described these civilian versions as "assault rifles," "assault pistols," "assault-type," and "military assault" weapons to boost civilian assault-weapon sales throughout the 1980s. The industry and its allies only began to use the semantic argument that a "true" assault weapon is a machine gun after civilian assault weapons turned up in inordinate numbers in the hands of drug traffickers, criminal gangs, mass murderers, and other dangerous criminals.[/b] VPC "We love to smash those gun makers when they use the assault weapons terms but being the two faced bastards we are we have no problem what so ever in using the label of machine gun on anything with a pistol grip. Blow dryer------ not with a pistol grip, that's a fucking machine gun, glue gun, bullshit, see that pistol grip, that's a machine gun, cordless screwdriver, no way. As to the "inordinate" amount of assault weapons in the hands of gangs, well we don't exactly have any figures to back that up but then we don't need to prove anything, we're just trying to scare the shit out of the soccer moms".
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:25:48 PM EDT
Ah, the good 'ol VPC... The only place on Earth where a woman fatally and repeatedly raped up the ass is preferred to a dead rapist. These people are soulless ghouls, whether by choice or ignorance or both. These asswads know nothing, except the fear of everything and their own lack of BALLS, hence the desire to cut the fortitude to defend oneself out of society, in order to validate their own self-worthlessness and mind-numbing cowardice. Fuck them. Repeatedly. (Just my constitutionally guaranteed opinion, embellished with Heavy Metal and Beer) SG
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:41:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NE223: VPC "You'll note that the military weapons are equipped with an adjustable "bullet nozzle" at the end of that long pipe thingy that the explosive shells travel down. This allows the user to adjust the "hosing" to a fine, medium or heavy spray."
View Quote
[size=6][green][b]ROTFLMFAO[/b][/green][/size=6][green],thanks I needed that tonight[/green]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 6:05:04 PM EDT
Found this portrait of Mr. Diaz... [img]http://flymeaway.net/images/Headsup.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 6:35:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By notso: YAY IVE GOT A BULLET HOSE!!!!!
View Quote
I have two!
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 6:41:24 PM EDT
These guys are on target. I mean hell my Vaquero, when I spin it, its like wow man I can kill a hole room of Glock wielding pussies. But man if only it were full auto. I'm thinking a bet fed Vaquero, less or more lethal? What about belt fed muskets? ? ? ?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 10:06:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By notso: YAY IVE GOT A BULLET HOSE!!!!!
View Quote
I have two!
View Quote
CJ you post in other topics that you are 17 years old,how do you own firearms at 17? Just wondering? Bob [:D]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 8:21:26 AM EDT
Oh dammit! Honey, the kids left the bullet hose on again! The ammo bill is going to be nuts!
Top Top