Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IMR 4350

Ugh, you’re still not getting it. Yes, I used the term plugged. How long it’s been since they did plug barrels is absolutely irrelevant. I stipulated they be plugged so as to compare bayonets to other weapons alone, as opposed to bayonets as an add-on to a working “assault” rifle. Can you tell me why what is essentially a sword with a butt is fine alone but somehow needs to be banned when the rifle works? What is it about the combination between rifle and blade that rises to illegality that is missing from blade alone?

I submit that if plugged and bayonetted rifles aren’t any more dangerous than handguns, for instance, and in fact are far less dangerous, then there’s nothing about the rifle shooting that suddenly renders them banable. They use the add-on logic to kill us with a thousand cuts, even when it makes no sense whatsoever.


23 posted on 12/20/2012 10:28:47 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Tublecane

Reading comprehension is your friend.

Introduce yourself sometime.

I didn’t comment about a bayonet one way or another.

I simply stated a bayonet didn’t pug a barrel.


24 posted on 12/20/2012 2:01:02 PM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson