Your right - like the U.S. Army, the IDF is almost purely carbine these days. Hell, even our SAWs have folding stocks.
There has to be a joke in here somewhere about the Jews, circumcision, and barrel/magazine size…but I’m just not seeing it. Maybe someone else can do the honors, but I give up. Just wanted to let you guys know that I didn’t fail to see the potential here, even if I did fail to actualize it.
Fanatasic, beat me to it by miles. Got to be the most apt pit response for ages.
So it’s like a pot holder for a gun barrel? 
But why the holes? Is that to vent the heat, so that the shroud doesn’t just get as hot, and negate the purpose?
(Sorry to bump this-but my modem kicked out last week, and I only got the new one hooked up today)
raise hand
And frankly, I’d be all for it.
I mean, seriously, who Lurks at the fucking Threshold?! Get in or stay the fuck out, don’t just stand there like a moron ! Say what you want about fatass Chtulhu or that inbred, anti-birth control sack of shit Shub Niggurath, but they don’t fuck around with this oooo I’m the omniscient key shit, THEY DRIVE YOU NUTS AND EAT YOUR SOUL, OK ?!
And they fucking look the part as well. I mean, giant sleeping sea god with tentacle face ? Scary. Evil goat with a thousand young ? Ominous. But you ? You don’t even try, do you ? You’re what, “a congerie of irridescent globes” ? Oh yeah, a pile of testes. That’s fucking spooky. Sorry Yog, but you’re a LAME fucking god and you should just give up. Now. FUCK.
The holes are so more air gets past the barrel, cooling it off faster.
Laws of thermodynamics, and whatnot.
Gotcha. Makes sense.
I don’t want to feed the troll anymore, so I’m going to respond to him here, so I can point out he’s a troll. And a fucking willfully ignorant idiot who wants to shit all over the Constitution rather than honestly trying to amend it. Response follows:
It is true, exactly as I stated. Your original rationalization was bullshit, and then you shifted the goalposts and added other metrics than “necessity”. Yes, I know, you got caught making an ignorant argument and then changed it without admitting your first one was wrong. Good show.
Wrong.
Already done several times in this thread by several other people, including bob who just posted to you specifically. You accidentally didn’t see all the times the data has been posted and discussed in this thread.
I’m sure.
So you’ve now admitted that in addition to “necessity”, “danger” is also a bullshit rationalization. You’re doing a bangup job here.
Have you, perhaps, considered learning WTF you’re talking about? Just a suggestion. Again your “sarcasm” just reveals that you’re making shit up as fast as you can type, and you are willfully ignorant of the facts. There’s a reason why the secret service generally uses automatic weapons and not “assault weapons” to protect the President. But of course, your attempts to destroy part of our Constitution have to be based on less than honest fear mongering, eh?
Your argument would look less laughably ignorant if you had a clue. Even a basic clue. A minigun is not an “assault weapon”, the AK that’s an “assault weapon” is functionally no different from any other hunting rifle.
You are ignorant and simply making shit up.
Name five hunting rifles. :rolleyes:
Who do you think you’re fooling? We all know you’re just making this up as you go along and you know nothing about guns. Here’s a hint, you’d be stupid if you’d rather someone take a shot at you with a bolt action thirty ought six rifle than with an AK at 150 yards.
Your guessing skills are about as accurate as your research skills.
Idiot.
I have a friend and rugby teammate from high school who was in the Secret Service for a few years after serving as a platoon sergeant in the USMC. I have seen his photos from this time, and the two weapons that he generally used were an MP5 and a P90 (a small futuristic-looking submachinegun chambered for the 5.7x28 round). Both of these weapons are automatic (well, technically, select-fire - capable of firing in semiauto or automatic.) Neither of these are readily available to civilians.
There is a neutured semi-auto version of the P90 (can’t remember what it’s called) with a longer barrel, available to civilians - I personally don’t see the point of it, since the whole point of a submachine gun is to provide automatic fire in a compact package, and the semi-P90 clone has neither of those, so you’re better off with a pistol IMO. There is also a really lame clone of the MP5 made by some company (Vector Arms?) that is semi-auto only.
If Barack Obama were really against “assault weapons,” he would have his Secret Service details armed with bolt-action 1903 Springfields. I mean, he supported a handgun ban, so his Secret Service detail shouldn’t be able to have those either. I’m sure that four Secret Service agents with 1903 Springfields would be more than satisfactory to ensure the safety and protection of President Obama. I mean, those rifles can hit a target hundreds of yards away, and if someone tries to attack him at close range, well, they can beat him over the head with the stock. Why should his agents have to carry evil assault weapons that “have no place on our streets” when they’d be perfectly fine with more “reasonable” firearms?
But of course - the life of the president is simply WORTH more than my life, or my family’s life, or your life, or the life of your kids. Or the life of someone who lives in a dangerous neighborhood and has to walk to work at a liquor store that gets robbed twice a month, or the life of someone who’s stuck in an area filled with looters or rioters, in the middle of a natural disaster or something, who might actually NEED a weapon for self-defense that was high-capacity and effective at long ranges. I mean, these people are just people - the president is a president, and above such restrictions.
It’s a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. There’s a famous picture somewhere of Chuck Schumer, one of the most anti-gun politicians in America, joyfully firing a TEC-9 at a shooting range. Just sheer elitist hypocrisy.
Thanks for the pit. I guess you can respond to people honestly in here without fear of the law? What are the rules here, if any?
By the way, yes, I really do believe what I was saying, this isn’t some kind of pointless fake poster out to get a laugh.
I thought the plan was to be eaten first, so you are spared some of the worst horrors. :eek:
Try reading the stickies you willfully ignorant ignorant, shit-stupid troll.
I didn’t join in the original thread because I’ve learned that trying to debate 2A issues with a troll is just exactly like rolling in shit. You accomplish nothing except getting covered with shit.
You’re a troll.
Go away.
Dear troll:
By stating the 100% accurate truth and pointing out how you were forced to continually move the goalposts as each one of your rationalizations was shot down?
Yah, my bad. :rolleyes:
Yes, showing your profound, willful ignorance of the mechanics and nature of various firearms. And arguing that since they weren’t necessary (in your ignorance-based view), people should not have them. Of course, you’ve also remained deliberately ignorant of why you’d use various firearms for various purposes (your claim that a handgun could replace a hunting rifle is priceless), or for that matter, why a flash suppressor, muzzle shrouds, etc… need to be banned. Generally when someone tries to pin you down on that point, you shift the goalposts again and complain about how it’s simply unreasonable for someone to ask that you know wtf you’re talking about before you attempt to violate the Bill of Rights.
You obviously have no clue as to what intellectual honesty means. Here’s a hint, it doesn’t mean “pointing out that your original ignorance-based rationalization was crap, and you shifted the goalposts as soon as you were caught at it.” Complaining about how you are being held to your own words though, you whiny bitch?
Yah, that might do it.
Yes, if you’re a moron.
That means: go ahead spunky.
Of course, were you not a deliberately ignorant trolling asshole, you might even recognize that one can add different arguments without abandoning the first. While you, on the other hand, abandoned your first and added additional rationalizations, without ever conceding that you were wrong.
No, you lying schmuck.
When you, like the gleefully stupid troll you are, pointed out that you were supporting a bill without even having read it, many of us responded by pointing out that since the bill itself was created by people who were ignorant or lying on the subject of the bill, there was no reason to place blind faith in them. I know you’re also painfully stupid, but try real hard to figure out why " ‘Assault weapon’ is a meaningless scare phrase… and the people who are using it are wrong to do so" is not shifting the goalposts but “People should not have ‘assault weapons’ because they’re not necessary. Er, I mean, they’re too dangerous. Er, I mean, they’re too dangerous and their functions can be replaced by any other gun. Er, I mean, they have no uses. Er…” is shifting the goalposts.
True, especially since you’re lying through your rotten little troll teeth in order to pretend that I did any such thing, you stupid son of a bitch. What did I, in fact, say, you liar? Ya know, in the post you quoted and responded to, idiot?
What did I say before that?
You stupid liar, why lie about me when all I have to do is quote my own posts? Obviously, I made quite clear that I was taking you to task for your stupidity in your original argument, and how you had changed it. Are you really so fucking stupid that you think that my specific claim of you shifting the goalposts meant you never changed your tune? Are you really that much of a fool? That when I delineate between your original argument and the rationalizations that you added in later when you shifted the goalposts, that I’m claiming your argument remained exactly as it was at first?
I don’t believe it. You’re stupid, but you’re not that stupid.
Just a troll.
But it could Some people with a mean streak would enjoy seeing someone go bear hunting with a pistol. You could hunt the bear, but I don’t think you’d be too thrilled with the results. I wonder, do bears mount people heads on their wall? 
You left out “inaccurate as hell in full-auto mode”.
Bear hunting with a pistol is not unknown. I know a fellow who bagged one with a scoped .44 magnum revolver. One shot, one bear.
Therein lies the key: the pistols one might use to hunt bear are not the same pistols one might use for self-defense against humans. Pistols suitable for the hunting of large, perhaps dangerous, game tend to be heavy, bulky affairs. Concealment and such do not enter into their design parameters. They also use deeply penetrative, hard-recoiling cartridges which are liabilities in terms of over-penetration and follow-up shots when used for self-defense.
The right tool for the job is as true with guns as anything else. I’d feel quite confident hunting bear with one of the heavy magnum pistols.