Next commander in chief?

On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 07:25:39 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/5/2015 8:49 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 06:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 8:13:31 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ian Field wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...e-dont-do-this

There's stupid and then there's REALLY STUPID. That guy is in tthe REALLY STUPID category. Besides which the weapon he used is NOT a machine gun it's an assault rifle. I really wish writers would learn the proper terms for various firearms.

Cheers


Right, that's not a machine gun. This is a machine gun:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...ast/twin50.jpg

A pet peeve is the phrase 'assault rifle', which is pretty
darned nebulous and seems to apply not to any particular
feature except 'looks scary to the uninformed'. They are no
more or less lethal than an assault machete, an assault
switchblade, an assault hand grenade (see Malmo Sweden for
example) or quite notably a few assault boxcutters in the
hands of assault jihadis on assault airplanes one fine morning.

Like any tool, it doesn't have volition.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Assault Rifle was the term given to early automatic firing rifles with high (20 or more rounds) magazine capacities that were designed to allow troops to assault enemy positions. Even the BAR was an ASSAULT rifle = Browing Assault/Automatic Rifle. It was designed for assaulting WW1 trenches. Thus assault as in assault rifle is a proper term.

Cheers

The "Browning Automatic Rifle" was originally used by the U.S. Army as
a squad level support "machine gun" and likely designed for that
purpose. Given that it weighs nearly 20 lbs. I doubt that it was ever
a popular selection for assaulting trenches :-)

The original definition of an "Assault Rifle" was a full-automatic
weapon using reduced power ammunition compared to a full size rifle. I
believe that the Germans were the first to come up with the idea.
--
cheers,

John B.


That's correct and Kalashnikov duly credited the German
design as his inspiration[1] for something between an 'MP'
machine pistol and an automatic machine gun.

[1] There is much speculation that Kalashnikov was merely
the propaganda face of a large development team but he still
is officially credited with the design.

I believe that has been explained a number of times. The Russian
"Defense" industry uses a "design team" concept which isn't so far
different from what is done in designing an airplane.

The Sturmgewehr 44 (SIG 44) was adopted by the German Army in 1944.
The name, I believe when translated to English is "Assault Rifle" :-)
It was a gas operated "small" rifle with the gas cylinder above the
barrel, capable of selective fire and having a 30 round detachable
magazine. It fired the 7.92 x 33 cartridge as opposed the full size
rifle that fired a 7.92 X 57.

The AK-47 which looks somewhat similar to the German weapon, although
I believe that the inner workings are different was accepted by the
Russian Army in the early 1950's.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 05/08/15 18:56, Duane wrote:
On 05/08/2015 10:34 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 5:13:31 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2015 5:14 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 4:12:18 PM UTC-4, Ian Field wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...e-dont-do-this


There's stupid and then there's REALLY STUPID. That guy is in tthe
REALLY STUPID category. Besides which the weapon he used is NOT a
machine gun it's an assault rifle. I really wish writers would learn
the proper terms for various firearms.

Cheers


Right, that's not a machine gun. This is a machine gun:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfr...ast/twin50.jpg

A pet peeve is the phrase 'assault rifle', which is pretty
darned nebulous and seems to apply not to any particular
feature except 'looks scary to the uninformed'. They are no
more or less lethal than an assault machete, an assault
switchblade, an assault hand grenade (see Malmo Sweden for
example) or quite notably a few assault boxcutters in the
hands of assault jihadis on assault airplanes one fine morning.

Like any tool, it doesn't have volition.

A tool for what? A box cutter, for example, cuts boxes. A machete
cuts cane. The military-looking carbines don't have any real purpose
except killing people, presumably in large numbers. Civilians do not
need a tool for killing people in large numbers. I can totally
understand the infatuation with these guns -- they're mechanically
interesting. They look cool. They're fun to shoot. But if you want to
call them a tool, then they are a tool for killing people efficiently
(particularly with the improved accuracy over the last 40 years). They
are clearly more lethal than an assault box cutter -- which become
pretty useless as a weapon when the target is more than an arms'
length away, unless it is a throwing box cutter.


Guns don't kill people. People kill people. And with the right gun
people can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.


And he's right. here is a good example

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33802026

Why parents don't stand up to their constitutional rights to arm their
children is a mystery to me. I understand that school children are not
allowed to be armed in the USA. WTF!? Are they not citizens? If the 3
year old was allowed to defend himself this may never have happened. A
travesty of government interference. Children, and indeed, unborn
children have a constitutional right to defend themselves.

I'm a paid up member of the NRA. It's the NRA that *defends* the right
of the individual among others. Go here;

http://home.nra.org/

they take credit cards, it's a one stop shop to defend your rights.

Anyway, I'm happy that these yahoos are starting to talk. Playing to
his base with assault weapons, or semi autos or whatever to fry bacon
will hopefully paint this guy as the nut case that he is.

CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


...................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

wrote:
CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


..................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

A confederacy of dunces.

--
duane

On 8/7/2015 5:44 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


..................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

A confederacy of dunces.


and Crazy Uncle Joe is still just a heartbeat away. Yikes!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 6:56:48 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2015 5:44 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


..................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

A confederacy of dunces.


and Crazy Uncle Joe is still just a heartbeat away. Yikes!

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

civilian rep for the McCain Syndrome

the reps really wandered off there....we wonder what country they're living in.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:56:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2015 5:44 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


..................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

A confederacy of dunces.


and Crazy Uncle Joe is still just a heartbeat away. Yikes!

You want crazy -- pick any of the participants at the FOX debate. Do you think Nixon would have spewed Scripture and claimed divine guidance as president. F*** no! Eisenhower would have reprimanded the moderator and refused to discuss his personal beliefs. But nowadays, you would think we're electing the Pope or an Ayatollah. Jeb had to pull out the stops to keep up with the other crazies. There used to be a time when hearing God was a sign of schizophrenia rather than a qualification for public office.

Think of the great Republican presidents. Could any of them get elected today? No. Not crazy enough. Even Reagan -- who for some reason has been sainted --couldn't get elected because he was a deal-maker and would be portrayed as too "soft."

-- Jay Beattie.

crazy Nixon rode a failed foreign policy fantasy and a secret plan to election killing 58000 kids.

shell the area with a WW2 battleship....

.................

the idea here is enfoldment of various right wing nutcases thru their physical embodiment eg Fiorenee witless executive, Huck-A-Bee, Triunfo Mussolini, .... Earth Wind Fire

Darwin on hand forming a coal-a-lition for the future.

jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 3:56:48 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2015 5:44 PM, Duane wrote:
wrote:
CRUSS isnot a nut case...CRUSS has a constituency. The constituency asks for this


..................... meanwhile


http://presidential-candidates.insid..._term=dt#Intro

A confederacy of dunces.


and Crazy Uncle Joe is still just a heartbeat away. Yikes!

You want crazy -- pick any of the participants at the FOX debate. Do you
think Nixon would have spewed Scripture and claimed divine guidance as
president. F*** no! Eisenhower would have reprimanded the moderator and
refused to discuss his personal beliefs. But nowadays, you would think
we're electing the Pope or an Ayatollah. Jeb had to pull out the stops to
keep up with the other crazies. There used to be a time when hearing God
was a sign of schizophrenia rather than a qualification for public office.

Think of the great Republican presidents. Could any of them get elected
today? No. Not crazy enough. Even Reagan -- who for some reason has been
sainted --couldn't get elected because he was a deal-maker and would be
portrayed as too "soft."


So true. I'm hoping the majority of Americans don't agree with that crap.
At least the voting Americans.

What cracks me up is that when I was a kid in the south it was the
democrats that were the religious zealot racist clowns. Then their kids
started listening to the Allman Brothers and all that changed.


--
duane

On 8/8/2015 11:01 AM, Duane wrote:

What cracks me up is that when I was a kid in the south it was the
democrats that were the religious zealot racist clowns. Then their kids
started listening to the Allman Brothers and all that changed.

Clearly it's God's will. It was his will that these crazies run for
president as Republicans so that Hillary will be elected.

But it is amusing. You have the low-information voters going crazy for
Donald Trump and the Republican establishment seems powerless to do
anything about it. Yet in the last two presidential elections they ended
up nominating non-crazies and lost both times so maybe they need to try
something else this time.

I think the Republican establishment would like to see a Bush/Fiorina
ticket. I wonder if they realize the enormous baggage that Fiorina
brings with her after she nearly destroyed HP.