Gun Legislation

[bannination]

...Penalties for gun crime need to be greatly increased including more use of the death penalty, and carrying out death sentences in a more expedient manner for another...

We don't trust the government to always get it right as much as you do, liberal.

"The Government" does not determine guilt or innocence. That is done by a jury of our peers, numbnuts. Now you are proving ignorance on our justice system as well.

Oh you mean a jury of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. That's who I want deciding my life!

[Mad American]

Once again when proven an ignorant moron vrede spins the words. Of course the runner is the same person after getting prosthetics, just like a 10/22, is still the 10/22 after receiving a scope. YOU made the claim it had been altered. I'm going to try to explain this accuracy thing one more time but I doubt you will get it even then. I have a rifle that was manufactured, tested, and sold with NO SIGHTING mechanism. However that rifle is guaranteed sub minute of angle ACCURACY. So, with that in mind how can a gun that has no sighting mechanism what so ever have ACCURACY that was determined to be sub MOA?

[Mad American]

...Penalties for gun crime need to be greatly increased including more use of the death penalty, and carrying out death sentences in a more expedient manner for another...

We don't trust the government to always get it right as much as you do, liberal.

"The Government" does not determine guilt or innocence. That is done by a jury of our peers, numbnuts. Now you are proving ignorance on our justice system as well.

Logic response: The jury decides based on evidence collected by the government police, presented by the government prosecutor, rebutted, often, by government public defenders, and allowed by the government judge. And, sometimes, the government judge determines the penalty, not a jury.

Real world response: Mad American is unaware of all the death row prisoners that have been absolved.

Either way, he's an idiot.

That said, I don't trust juries to always get it right, either. Too many have idiots like Mad American on them.

Once again vrede's poor wording choice get shoved up his ignorant ass and he comes back with a spin the words and attack post. Typical! Either way it is not up to the government to determine innocence or guilt. The government compiles and presents a case. They win or lose based on the decision of a jury NOT the government!

[Mad American]

"ACCURACY" in the context of what is being discussed with "cosmetic" applies to the end result from both shot and shooter working together, not some factory specs.
Of course, it's really all about Mad American being too big of a wuss to admit that "cosmetic" was dumb, so he's still making a much bigger fool of himself.

Run away, child, run away.

Figured you were too stupid to figure it out. You made the statement that the "weapon's accuracy" was effected by the scope. That implies ownership of the accuracy by the weapon, not an incorrect statement. However, the accuracy held (owned) by the weapon is not affected by the addition or deletion of a sighting mechanism. That accuracy is built in to the weapon itself. Don't blame me for yet another poor wording choice on your part that further shows your ignorance.

What would really bake your noddle is finding out that most shooters are incapable of making a weapon perform to it's best accuracy.

[Mad American]

Logic response: The jury decides based on evidence collected by the government police, presented by the government prosecutor, rebutted, often, by government public defenders, and allowed by the government judge. And, sometimes, the government judge determines the penalty, not a jury.

Real world response: Mad American is unaware of all the death row prisoners that have been absolved.

Point dodged, as usual.

Either way, he's a numbnut.

That said, I don't trust juries to always get it right, either. Too many have numbnuts like Mad American on them.

Once again vrede's poor wording choice get shoved up his ignorant ass and he comes back with a spin the words and attack post. Typical!

As always, Mad American turns into a cowardly liar when he has screwed up. Typical!

Either way it is not up to the government to determine innocence or guilt. The government compiles and presents a case. They win or lose based on the decision of a jury NOT the government!

His spin this time is to suggest that I said anything about the ultimate determination when I really just said "We don't trust the government to always get it right". If the government police, government prosecutor, government public defender or the government judge gets something wrong, then the jury decides based on faulty information.

English and logic fail, again.

(wait for it folks, even the simplest concepts take a long time to sink in, if they ever do)

More typical vrede spin. You made the statement that implied government made decisions not me. Funny part is you then thought your point strong enough to follow it up with, what I guess you thought was, an insult..."liberal"

[Mad American]

Both have been "altered" (a word you really need to look up) with non-"cosmetic" changes yet he remains the same person and the 10/22 remains a 10/22.

"ACCURACY" in the context of what is being discussed with "cosmetic" applies to the end result from both shot and shooter working together, not some factory specs.

Figured you were too stupid to figure it out. You made the statement that the "weapon's accuracy" was effected by the scope. That implies ownership of the accuracy by the weapon, not an incorrect statement. However, the accuracy held (owned) by the weapon is not affected by the addition or deletion of a sighting mechanism. That accuracy is built in to the weapon itself. Don't blame me for yet another poor wording choice on your part that further shows your ignorance.

Yes, you poor pathetic and illiterate thing, we all know by now that you were to thick to get that of course "accuracy" meant shot and shooter since rifles don't look through their own scopes, and that your pedantic refusal to get this point is really all about you being too big of a wuss to admit that your "cosmetic" was dumb. Consequently, you've made a much bigger fool of yourself while proving that you are a dishonest coward.

Run away, child, run away.

What would really bake your noddle is finding out that most shooters are incapable of making a weapon perform to it's best accuracy.

You are imagining things, again.

Thank you. You make a better case for gun control than I could ever hope to.

Just keep blaming me for your poor wording choice that proved your own ignorance, dumbass. Great tactic

[Mad American]

More typical vrede spin.

More typical, cowardly Mad American spin.

You made the statement that implied government made decisions not me.

Government does make decisions at every step in the process from crime to execution, dummy. Most it gets right, some it gets wrong. What I never said was that government decides guilt or innocence. That was just your stupid assumption, and now you're trying to cover for your screw-up, as usual.

Funny part is you then thought your point strong enough to follow it up with, what I guess you thought was, an insult..."liberal"

Hey, you're the one that believes that government is always accurate and honest in what is presented to a jury. I'd call that, sarcastically, "liberal" but "blood thirsty dumbass" works, too.

Keep spinning. You got that other hand in the cookie jar now....best thing is we ALL know that you are not going to let go either.

[Mad American]

Mad American still thinks that "cosmetic" was a good word choice, and that we can't see that everything since, everything, has been a deflection from how silly that was.

Brave Dumbass American.

All the accessories that have been discussed do nothing but change the appearance of the weapon and have no bearing on the operational aspects of the weapon. They are by that very fact cosmetic. Vrede just can't stand the fact that his statement that scopes and tripods somehow affect the weapon's accuracy is wrong and yet he has continued to post the same idiotic argument for nearly 10 pages now.

[Mad American]

Poor pathetic and illiterate Mad American - He confused himself by actually thinking that, "We don't trust the government to always get it right" meant in issuing a capital crime verdict, and now every attempt to sort out his befuddlement is "spin".

Or, he's not quite that stupid, does recognize his flub, and is just too cowardly and dishonest to admit it.

...Penalties for gun crime need to be greatly increased including more use of the death penalty, and carrying out death sentences in a more expedient manner for another...

We don't trust the government to always get it right as much as you do, liberal.

Keep spinning vrede. Do you ever get dizzy?

[bannination]

Mad American still thinks that "cosmetic" was a good word choice, and that we can't see that everything since, everything, has been a deflection from how silly that was.

Brave Dumbass American.

All the accessories that have been discussed do nothing but change the appearance of the weapon and have no bearing on the operational aspects of the weapon. They are by that very fact cosmetic. Vrede just can't stand the fact that his statement that scopes and tripods somehow affect the weapon's accuracy is wrong and yet he has continued to post the same idiotic argument for nearly 10 pages now.

All semantics, are you seriously telling me you will not be more accurate if you add a scope to your gun (Where it originally just had sights)?

It's not cosmetic, it's a general principle.

[rstrong]

All the accessories that have been discussed do nothing but change the appearance of the weapon and have no bearing on the operational aspects of the weapon. They are by that very fact cosmetic. Vrede just can't stand the fact that his statement that scopes and tripods somehow affect the weapon's accuracy is wrong and yet he has continued to post the same idiotic argument for nearly 10 pages now.

All semantics, are you seriously telling me you will not be more accurate if you add a scope to your gun (Where it originally just had sights)?

It's not cosmetic, it's a general principle.

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

[bannination]

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

No no, you have it all wrong, the tripod for the camera is just a cosmetic effect. When the camera is on the tripod, *everything else* stops shaking.

I think I read that somewhere deep in Einsteins field equations.

[rstrong]

I may not be a gun user but I have plenty of experience with tripods - in photography. That they greatly reduce shaking when you zoom in on even a slightly distant object is absolutely obvious. The effect it would have on aiming a gun is also absolutely obvious.

No no, you have it all wrong, the tripod for the camera is just a cosmetic effect. When the camera is on the tripod, *everything else* stops shaking.

I think I read that somewhere deep in Einstein's field equations.

Plus, the zoom feature, like the scope on a rifle, does not enhance the quality of the shot at all. Instead, it makes everything actually get closer. Some gun freaks call their scope "worm hole".

I suppose the flash suppressor is just cosmetic too. It stops the red-eye effect if you're filming a hunting show.

[O Really]

OK, I still think "cosmetic" was a poor choice of words, but I see Mad's point. Here's what Cabela's offers in Ruger 10/22 accessories that appear you really could turn the top photo into the bottom, just by buying stuff from Cabela's..... http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories.shtml

Nevertheless, each of those changes through accessories would - according to Cabela's - change the operating characteristics of the weapon if not the capability. As to Vrede's suggestion to paint them pink, note that there is a pink stock version.

It does bring up the question, however, if you start with a VW frame, and you change the suspension, the body sheet metal, the tires, the transmission, the rear end, the motor, and the steering, do you still have a VW?

[Stinger]

You made a factually incorrect statement when you said that scopes and tripods effect a "weapon's accuracy". You got so hung up on trying to disprove the fact, that no matter what cosmetic accessory is added the weapons mechanical operation does not change. You screwed up, I caught you, and proved you an idiot.

If someone makes one technically false statement, he or she is an idiot? Wow. Must be a tough world you live in . . . or do you not apply the same standard to yourself?

It's only technically false to the most slow-witted and pedantic of posters lamely trying to cover for his "cosmetic" stupidity. Put a scope and tripod on a rifle and the shooting will be more accurate for almost all shooters other than the most inept. One could then write, "The rifle is more accurate for almost all shooters other than the most inept," but that's wordy and unnecessary when anyone smarter and less cowardly than Mad American is in trying to run away from his "cosmetic" flub knows what is meant if, "The rifle is more accurate," is written.

Obviously, Mad American goes through life utterly confused unless things are spelled out for him at a second grade level.

He's tossing common sense under the bus and clinging to technicalities, similar to what he does when he imagines that questioning the technical definitions of "assault weapons" by going on about select-fire modes, etc. makes any difference.

If a gun fires a two-inch group at 200 yards, and you put three tripods and four scopes on it, it will still only shoot a two-inch group at 200 yards. The gun itself doesn't get any more accurate ... but the shooter sure as hell should. I think his claim is that -- putting common sense completely to the side -- you have not technically made the gun itself more accurate -- i.e. it does not now shoot a one-inch group at 200 yards -- but he ignores the common sense conclusion that you've made it a helluva lot easier for the shooter to hit what he's aiming at.

Given the choice between common sense and meaningless technical differentiation, most intelligent people would go with the common sense approach. I really wouldn't call someone an idiot for taking the common sense approach, especially if all I had was some desperate technical nonsense.

[Mad American]

All semantics, are you seriously telling me you will not be more accurate if you add a scope to your gun (Where it originally just had sights)?

It's not cosmetic, it's a general principle.

It is not really semantics there is a difference between the inherent built in accuracy of a weapon and the effective accuracy of the weapon paired with shooter. Vrede mistakenly made the statement that a scope effects the weapons accuracy that is not true. However, your statement of adding a scope making "you' (the shooter) more accurate is spot on. I even said as much several pages back. The funniest thing about the whole argument to this point is that vrede picked two accessories that are not even included in the banned items list.

[Mad American]

OK, I still think "cosmetic" was a poor choice of words, but I see Mad's point. Here's what Cabela's offers in Ruger 10/22 accessories that appear you really could turn the top photo into the bottom, just by buying stuff from Cabela's..... http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories.shtml

Nevertheless, each of those changes through accessories would - according to Cabela's - change the operating characteristics of the weapon if not the capability. As to Vrede's suggestion to paint them pink, note that there is a pink stock version.

It does bring up the question, however, if you start with a VW frame, and you change the suspension, the body sheet metal, the tires, the transmission, the rear end, the motor, and the steering, do you still have a VW?

Well, Cabela's does offer some stuff that does change the operational aspects of the weapon. However, all of the accessories added in the two photos does not. You bring up a good example with the VW. Problem is, in the photos, all that has been changed is the sheet metal. Suspension, frame, tires, motor, rear end, tansmision, and steering are all still the same. Do you still have a VW in that case?

[O Really]

OK, let's not go down the rabbit hole in whether the lower pic is just sheet metal. I don't know, and don't care. But I see your point. Here's a further question: what is the operational difference in the lower pic Ruger and an AR-15 brand?

[bannination]

All semantics, are you seriously telling me you will not be more accurate if you add a scope to your gun (Where it originally just had sights)?

It's not cosmetic, it's a general principle.

It is not really semantics there is a difference between the inherent built in accuracy of a weapon and the effective accuracy of the weapon paired with shooter. Vrede mistakenly made the statement that a scope effects the weapons accuracy that is not true. However, your statement of adding a scope making "you' (the shooter) more accurate is spot on. I even said as much several pages back. The funniest thing about the whole argument to this point is that vrede picked two accessories that are not even included in the banned items list.

Ok, it's not semantics, it's a retarded way of looking at the accuracy of weapons.

[Mad American]

OK, let's not go down the rabbit hole in whether the lower pic is just sheet metal. I don't know, and don't care. But I see your point. Here's a further question: what is the operational difference in the lower pic Ruger and an AR-15 brand?

Operationally between all three pics there is no difference. They are all "gas operated" semi-automatics. Put simply, a small portion of the gas pressure created when the shell is fired is used to push a piston connected to the bolt assembly backwards opening the bolt, ejecting the spent casing and allowing another shell to load. Spring pressure then closes the bolt and seats the next round in the chamber. There is a difference in caliber. The Ruger is a standard 22LR rimfire, while the AR-15 platform is available in several different calibers.