This sort of thing IS the reason the MSM has ZERO credibility when it comes to guns.

[virginia mountainman]

To help the folks that don't understand what your looking at... That is a sling hanger... It is for attaching a sling to a rifle, so it can be slung over the shoulder to be carried, and some use the sling as a way to enhance aiming for long distance shooting... Clarification to what they PRINTED IN THE PAPER.....

1. A place to mount a Bayonet...No...It is where you attach a sling..

2. A sling hanger is NOT an intimidating presence, practically ALL long guns have these..

3. Only an complete imbecilic would "use it like a spear", and it "DID" take a Chicago Tribune reporter to come up with that one...

4. A grenade launcher? Whaaaaaaat, from the sling hanger?!?!!?!?? More proof of the total lack of knowledge...

[BlueStreak]

1. What difference does it make? The issue is not terminology. The issue is

gun deaths. Lots of them. Mostly avoidable.

I will not give in to your tactic of changing the subject to an irrelevant discussion of technical terminology.

[virginia mountainman]

2. What? Changing the subject??

Just pointing out they are clueless.... If they clearly don't know what they are talking about, why should we give them the time of day?

If you want to ban something, you should at least KNOW what your trying to ban.

[Scuba]

5. How much? Must they know the optimal barrel-twist for .308 150 grain ammo at 225 yards?

Must they know the standard trigger pull on a factory Glock 17?

Or is knowing how many children were murdered with guns last week good enough?

[iiibbb]

12. Yes they must...

... especially if they plan to write a law that is going to regulate barrel twist, they should know the difference.

[BlueStreak]

22. "They" are writing no such law

If you have a problem with the legislation going through Congress, then please identify those concerns. Some highly technical error in some unknown newspaper is of no consequence whatsoever.

[AtheistCrusader]

59. Your point would be relevant if

they stuck to reporting on those deaths, and skipped making up bullshit about the design and functionality of the weapons.

[Ehanson005]

71. No but....

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:18 PM - Edit history (1)

They should at lest know a minimum about the subject they are talking about.

Oh and by the way the answers to your question are A: 1 : 9, B: 6.5lbs

[BlueStreak]

7. Clueless? The text was correct. It was just pointing to the wrong part of the image.

And once again, what difference does any of that make? You was trying to throw out minutia to fog up the main conversation, which is about gun safety in America.

[iiibbb]

10. The text is not correct.

A bayonet lug is not an attachment point for a grenade launcher either.

[BlueStreak]

15. So what?

What possible difference does that make. There are still 1000 people dead of gun violence since Sandy Hook.

[iiibbb]

18. Did the children at Sandy hook die from a grenade or bayonet?

Why does this feature matter?

It is about credibility... words matter.

[Pullo]

32. Those bayonets are responsible for tons of drive-by stabbings

Writing these bills to ban "assault" weapons must require a special kind of stupid.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. How many killed by grenade launchers?

[Ed Suspicious]

16. I can get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass,

but I'd rather take the butchers word for it. My point is, the T-bone is still a T-bone even if I'm not in the best position to identify it. Guns are still the tool of choice for murderers with guns whether or not I know a stock from a barrel.

[iiibbb]

20. What person has been murdered with a bayonet?

What person has been murdered with a grenade recently?

[BlueStreak]

23. Exactly. Grenades are illegal, and we almost never see them used for murder.

Now you are starting to catch on.

[iiibbb]

24. And bayonets are legal and we've never seen them used for murder

And we're just talking about a lug... not the actual device or bayonet.

[BlueStreak]

27. I am not aware of any movement to ban bayonets

But if we saw hundreds of bayonet murders each month, then we should look at banning them.

It is as simple as this. Even if the 2nd amendment is stretched to say that it is individual right, not a right of the state to maintain a militia, it is still a fact that no rights are unlimited. When the "right" of gun ownership comes up against the rights of all Americans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then you have a problem.

Rather than defending mass murderers, my suggestion would be that you join the rest of us in eliminating the weapons of choice for mass murderers so that you won't find your own "rights" restricted even more. As long as you choose to be on the side of mass murderers, you are going to have a problem.

[iiibbb]

34. So why the focus on a bayonet lug... and on top of that misinforming people about it.

If there's one thing gun control advocates and gun rights advocates should be in agreement on is that words matter. That people should be in agreement about what's being discussed. And that things that aren't relevant shouldn't be in the conversation because they create confusion and muddle what does matter.


Like choosing the words that claim I am on the side of mass murderers. That is a poor choice of words.

[BlueStreak]

41. Who cares? You are the one obsessed about it. Nobody else.

[iiibbb]

45. Nobody else?

Once again.

If gun control wants more support, they should focus on elements that matter. By bringing focus to elements that don't matter they undermine their cause.

Assuming their cause is to reach agreement about something.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. Why did the reporter bring it up then?

[shadowrider]

69. Nobody cares, but you will if a law is passed that isn't specific in terms and terminology.

Remember, this is a country that argues what the meaning of "is" is.

[Straw Man]

72. Umm ...

But if we saw hundreds of bayonet murders each month, then we should look at banning them.

How about 1694 murders (average of 141 per month) in 2011 with "knives or cutting instruments" vs. 323 (average of 27 per month) for all rifles, including "assault weapons"?

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Cutting weapons were responsible for 13% of all murders, rifles for 3%.

If every AR-style rifle disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow morning, it would barely cause a ripple in the murder rate.

[iiibbb]

25. Again.. the bayonet lug is not a grenade mounting point.

So that's irrelevant.

Who's been killed with a bayonet mounted to a rifle? Why this feature? What does this have to do with the lethality of any weapon? I could use duct tape to put a knife on a gun.

[Ashgrey77]

64. "Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?"

For the inevitable abuse report, they are both quotes from the movie Tommy Boy, mine and his. I at least sourced mine. The T-bone and butcher quote is directly from the movie as is the paint chip quote. And yes if you want to ban something you sure as hell need to know something about it, if you don't that is called ignorance and as I've been told my whole life, it isn't a excuse.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114694/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Boy

[iiibbb]

8. Gun control advocates always complain about the ambiguity of the 2nd amendment

... at least those that recognize it and don't have blinders on.


But then turn around and get defensive when people are insisting that precise terminology is used.


Words matter... or they don't. What's the point if words don't matter?

[BlueStreak]

48. Here is the precise terminology that matters

A projectile passing through the spinal column causing paralysis.

A projectile entering the brain causing massive bleeding and permanent loss of brain function

A projectile entering the aorta, causing death after a few agonizing minutes.

A bullet-riddled body of the teacher trying to protect the 7-year-old from the spray of gunfire.

And you want to argue about the technical terms for the weapons that do these things? Keep that up and a lot of people will come to the idea that maybe the only answer is to ban ALL firearms.

[iiibbb]

49. At least the words "Ban all Firearms" is an idea that is clear and not irrelevant as "bayonet lugs"

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. FAIL

The article referred to brought up the subject of bayonets/bayonet lugs and grenade launchers. An issue often brought up by pro-control is credibility. Ranting against a firearm BECAUSE OF ITS FEATURES when you're unable to accurately name or describe them is evidence of complete incompetence or DELIBERATE LIES.

The pro-control MSM descriptive word of the year is FEEBLE.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Law is technical details.

Screw up the technical details and you screw up the law, creating loopholes. Because those who crafted the first AWB didn't understand technicalities the entire law was one huge loophole.

[Eleanors38]

3. Will one of the features I.D.-ing "assault weapons" be a particular color?

[JohnnyBoots]

4. The paper should

be sued for liable. That's an out right lie and misinformation.

Wathcing the Feinstein presser on CSPAN3 and trying to not have my head explode.

[virginia mountainman]

6. I have a small supply of duct tape on hand for when its on TV..

I may end up using it all, for this...

[Scuba]

9. If only that were possible, Rupert Murdoch would be broke and in prison.

[BlueStreak]

14. "Sued for liable [sic]"? On what basis?

Who was libeled? It seems to me only the picture of the gun was harmed in this case. A picture of a gun is not a person (yet) and has no standing to sue.

[Orrex]

19. Guns don't sue people.

People sue people.

[frylock]

44. guns are like a fetus to some people now..

like the idiots in AZ that won't stand to see guns purchased in buy-back programs destroyed. won't somebody please PLEASE think of the poor guns!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Yes, I demand they be sued for liable!

Or, perhaps they will be liabled for sued!

[frylock]

36. the paper should be sued for libel?!

by who? the gun?! fucking ridiculous.

[gejohnston]

52. yeah but it would be a cool

assed publicity stunt.

[petronius]

17. So what you're saying is, that's actually the shoulder thing? I'm confused: I thought

the shoulder thing went up, but that one is actually going sideways in the picture...

This is what happens when people assume that 'military styling' equals 'extra dangerous.' A bayonet lug is an artifact of military use - although I suppose one could argue that they have a last-ditch hunting or self-defense utility - but there's no reason to think their existence have any public safety (and thus policy) relevance at all. "Intimidating presence" is just another way of saying 'looks scary,' which should play no role in assessing the utility of a rifle from a policy perspective...

[samsingh]

26. part of the problem is that gun lovers think it makes a difference to the cause of

reducing gun deaths.

i guess judges becomes experts in everything before they pass sentence.

[bowens43]

28. this is why the gun fetishists have ZERO credibility when it comes to guns.....

they think that this nonsense matters....bottom line guns are the problem. Period. End of story.

[villager]

30. +1

n/t

[iiibbb]

38. It matters because it creates confusion and impedes the efforts of sensible gun control.

If you want laws passed... keep it simple, don't create resistance by highlighting and banning things that don't matter.

[Ashgrey77]

65. So all you have to know is that guns are the problem?

Not anything about them? Ignorance is not cool. The more you spout stuff like that the less seriously the non ignorant take you. Just cause you FEEL a certain way about something doesn't make it valid.

[villager]

29. Wait, so all those slain kids at Sandy Hook are actually alive now!?

n/t

[iiibbb]

35. Would have been if only the gun didn't have a bayonet lug...

[villager]

37. And thus the extent of your empathy toward the young victims is now fully known.

n/t

[iiibbb]

39. As if your post demonstrates any empathy toward those children...

[villager]

40. More gun nut fail: I'm trying to prevent the next batch of victims. You prefer easily available

...military weapons, regardless of the consequences to societies, families, or hearts.

[iiibbb]

43. You don't know what I prefer except that people use correct words in order to craft laws.

That accomplish anything.

[villager]

47. Quit pretending you support any kind of law that would reduce the availability of military-grade

...weapons to your fellow gun nuts, and nuts in general.

[iiibbb]

50. Quit pretending you know anything about me.

[villager]

51. Aside from your public snark and stalking at websites like this? You mean, you're doing it

..for a goof, and you're the opposite of how virtually all your posts portray you!?

Hell, you're Andy Kaufman!

[iiibbb]

55. you've posted as much or more snark

[villager]

56. In reply to your attacks and general disregard of dead children, you mean?

n/t

[iiibbb]

58. Take your claim of my disregard for dead children

and go insult someone else.

[villager]

73. Are there others who respond with as little regard for the victims of mass shootings as you?

Your main concern is keeping the weapons of such killings in easy circulation, not with the violence, mayhem and heartbreak they cause.

[iiibbb]

74. My main concern is that any law that is written in a way that actually solves problems

You can find all kinds of holes in Feinstein's bill. Therefore not only does Feinstein's bill not save kids, it pisses off gun owners.


But when a gun owner gets pissed off about a law that doesn't help children you throw it in their face like they don't care about children.

It's fucked up.

Take a deep breath man and stop accusing me of not caring about children.

[iiibbb]

75. So... do these democrats not count as democrats?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172106236

They obviously are not going to vote for the bill because they don't care about children.

[villager]

76. I would say when push comes to shove, they always care about their political sponsors first

As the history of Blue Dog voting attests

[iiibbb]

77. So your answer is "no", and that they also prefer guns to dead children

Correct?

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. One rarely finds this level of moral posturing outside of antiabortion protests.

There, too, one will find similar claims of "It's for the children!"...

[armueller2001]

63. an AR15 or "assault weapon" is not a military-grade weapon.

I doubt you could find an army in the world using them. The army uses fully automatic "machine guns" which have been heavily restricted to civilians since 1934. The AR15 is semi-automatic which fires once per trigger pull. Firing rate is entirely dependent on the shooter's speed of moving their index finger, just like many, many common hunting rifles.

BUT I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNEW THAT!

[Ashgrey77]

66. No matter that "military style weapons" kill less that 100 people a year in the USA.

Cars kill 100 a day, cancer 500,000+ a year. Croc tears man, where's all the outrage over those deaths? Why aren't you spending your time fighting those deaths? Lots more victims to save there.

[beevul]

70. By supporting laws which do not and will not prevent mass shootings. N/T

[The Blue Flower]

31. Specificity and accuracy are important

So please take a careful look at the second amendment and explain to us all what "well-regulated" means. Take your time.

[Ashgrey77]

67. That is easy.

Well equipped and in good working order. Like a Swiss clock.

[frylock]

33. to be fair, it wouldn't hurt the cause if the media would do just a little bit of research..

we know the humpers love to derail the conversation as well as show off their superior knowledge of all things guns. so why can't the media get their shit together by using proper terminology when discussing the subject? it's just lazy ffs.

[iiibbb]

42. Look, I like guns

I am one of the willing to talk about gun control (although I do tend to become resistant when I'm called a nut, or fetishist, or whatever.... tends to be a turnoff). I have disagreements about degree perhaps, but if those that support gun control want the support to expand, they wouldn't undermine it by attacking "features" of a gun that have nothing to do with the problem.

[frylock]

46. i agree. talking about bayonet lugs does absolutely nothing to advance..

common-sense gun laws.

[jmg257]

53. Come on - you know why they go after 'features', because it is a way of distinguishing

certain arms from others...say AR types from Remington 7400 types - that gunners think they can justify a need for.

Gunners won't let em all be banned, so ya get what ya can...starting with those with high rates, higher capacity, and fast reloads. After you describe them or list them specificially, for those that are left - you do your best to limit their capabilities.

[iiibbb]

54. Most civilian AR's don't have lugs at all

So it is actually a way of going after surplus weapons. But now that they're down to a single characteristic it creates an issue. Then they say you can grind it off and be okay. So why was it made an issue in the first place if it has nothing to do with function. It is just a lot of hand waving over something entirely superficial.

If you want to ban function why do something indirect that causes fud?

Credibility matters

[jmg257]

57. Ok - appears they are doing away with that as a (dis)qualify feature,

just for the reason it is easily removable.

[Ashgrey77]

68. There is a real reason why there are less bayonet lugs on AR15's.

It has to do with barrel length. They are pointless on ALL 16 inch carbines gas system guns considering they don't mount correctly because the barrel is 1.5 inches longer and they don't lock on to the flash hider like they should because of the added length from the gasblock to the flash hider (Birdcage usually). The 16 inch carbine gas system is the most popular AR15.

[Glaug-Eldare]

62. If gun control was about saving lives,

Last edited Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:01 PM - Edit history (1)

they wouldn't be wetting their beds over cosmetic features like bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, foregrips, and other crap that has nothing to do with crime. Talk about disdain for dead kids -- these ghouls will exploit them as long as it takes to make sure the government bans harmless accessories that only make sport shooting easier and more fun. If only they had such righteous fury about the obvious connection between obnoxious subwoofers and drunk driving.