On 6/2/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>
>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>
> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
> caliber firearms?
>
> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>
>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>> unethical and usually illegal.
>
> Ethical? Hunting?

Down, boy, down! What are you so ticked off about? I said it wasn't
impossible, but it's not guaranteed. Do you really find that
objectionable? Are you _really_ claiming every head shot is a clean kill?

And yes, there are ethics to hunting, or there should be. It's
considered bad to let an animal suffer needlessly. It's also considered
bad to violate the many state laws that proclaim it's illegal to hunt
deer with a .22

Does your love of guns really trump such basic decency?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>
>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>
> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
> caliber firearms?
>
> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>
>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>> unethical and usually illegal.
>
> Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
> example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
> shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
> that they will eventually die.
>
>>
>> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
>
> Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
> Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
>

A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
the emperor is far away'.

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

On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 19:42:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/2/2022 7:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>>
>>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>>
>> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
>> caliber firearms?
>>
>> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
>> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
>> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>>
>>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>>> unethical and usually illegal.
>>
>> Ethical? Hunting?
>
>Down, boy, down! What are you so ticked off about? I said it wasn't
>impossible, but it's not guaranteed. Do you really find that
>objectionable? Are you _really_ claiming every head shot is a clean kill?
>
>And yes, there are ethics to hunting, or there should be. It's
>considered bad to let an animal suffer needlessly. It's also considered
>bad to violate the many state laws that proclaim it's illegal to hunt
>deer with a .22
>
>Does your love of guns really trump such basic decency?

As I previously asked you, "And you are an experienced hunter? Killed
many creatures with various caliber firearms?"

All this talk about ethics in hunting? What a bunch of namby-pamby
bull shit. You go out there and you shoot the damned creature, and
then you cut off his skin to make a rug.

Or you make sure that your first shot breaks a shoulder so the damned
thing can't charge and bite you. Tell me the ethics in deliberately
shooting to break a elk's shoulder, from 2 - 300 yards, in order to
keep the creature from running away.

I know you don't hunt but you might do a bit of reading. "In shooting
any dangerious animal the emphasis must be on disabling the animal
with the first shot"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 19:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>>
>>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>>
>> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
>> caliber firearms?
>>
>> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
>> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
>> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>>
>>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>>> unethical and usually illegal.
>>
>> Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
>> example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
>> shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
>> that they will eventually die.
>>
>>>
>>> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
>>
>> Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
>> Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
>>
>
>A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
>bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
>border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
>the emperor is far away'.

(:-) My grandfather, on my father's side, shot a deer every year, just
what the law allowed. And on occasion two deer if the Game Warden
happened to be spending time down at the other end of the state (:-)

But solely out of curiosity, there wasn't a Salt Block, fell off the
truck, in your Exe's back yard? Or maybe a sack of feed grain, or
such, broke and scattered all over :-?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 11:01:39 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 8:34:43 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 6/2/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 6/1/2022 10:53 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 19:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:29:54 PM UTC-4, John B.
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 11:48:58 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 6/1/2022 11:02 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Why do you suppose that people who are so afraid of
> > >>>>>> guns that they have never owned one always have the
> > >>>>>> greatest knowledge of what they are good for? I haver
> > >>>>>> hunted deer with a .22 LR. You have to be accurate
> > >>>>>> with a round like that which doesn't have a great deal
> > >>>>>> of energy.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nobody with any sense hunts deer with a .22LR. It's
> > >>>>> universally
> > >>>>> considered unethical.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Tell us about your excellent accuracy. Did you take
> > >>>>> your .22 deer with a
> > >>>>> heart shot? Did it drop instantaneously?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> IOW, lay it on thick.
> > >>>> https://www.hsa.org.uk/humane-killing-of-livestock-using-firearms-equipment/rifle
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 2nd paragraph
> > >>>
> > >>> From that page: "The .22 inch rim-fire are usually used
> > >>> for vermin control (rats and rabbits) but can be used
> > >>> effectively, when loaded with the correct ammunition, to
> > >>> kill young cattle, horses, sheep, deer*, goats, and pigs
> > >>> up to 100kg, when shooting from a short distance (from
> > >>> 5-25cm away)."
> > >>> You're trolling , John. Executing or slaughtering is not
> > >>> hunting. Do you suppose Tom got within 25cm of a deer?
> > >>>
> > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > >>
> > >> But of course when you are killing critters at a slaughter
> > >> house you
> > >> get right up close. After all the further way the better
> > >> chance you
> > >> have to "miss" the target which is hardly humane and, of
> > >> course, a lot
> > >> of people would decline to buy a steak with a bullet hole
> > >> in it.
> > >>
> > >> And to preclude any of your future foolishness you might
> > >> want to look
> > >> at:
> > >> https://shootersden2.com/post/2018/11/08/how-far-will-a-22-lr-bullet-kill
> > >>
> > >> "a 22 round CAN kill as far out as you can hit a target
> > >> which in near
> > >> perfect conditions can go as far out as 440 yards or so."
> > >> https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/4276920/
> > >>
> > >> " as a matter of fact I have killed a number of Javalinas
> > >> at 150 and
> > >> 200 yards with std hollow points and a few coyotes..I have
> > >> killed deer
> > >> in the more open country on my dads ranch in old Mexico at
> > >> up to about
> > >> 75 or 100 yards on a few ocassions and with shoulder shots."
> > >
> > > Most of the .22 hunter anecdotes on the page you cited had
> > > to do with much smaller animals than deer: woodchucks,
> > > ground squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits. There were a couple
> > > accounts of killing deer with 22LR in Mexico, or poachers
> > > using them while spotlighting deer.
> > >
> > > One response was "Sure, if you're willing to adapt the
> > > ethical standards of a poacher."
> > >
> > > Again, my statement was NOT that hunting deer with a 22LR
> > > was impossible. My statement was that "Nobody with any sense
> > > hunts deer with a .22LR. It's universally considered
> > > unethical."
> > >
> > >
> > > From
> > > https://www.urbanadventure.org/why-is-it-illegal-to-hunt-deer-with-a-22/
> > > :
> > > "It is unethical and inhumane.
> > >
> > > "Primarily, using a .22 for hunting deer is unethical. ...
> > >
> > > "A .22 shot will most likely result in the deer dying a slow
> > > yet very agonizing death. It is sure is not ethical to let
> > > the deer suffer that way. ...
> > >
> > > "Almost no state in the United States would allow any person
> > > to hunt deer using a .22."
> > >
> > >
> > > You might convince me to make allowances for very poor
> > > people hunting for meat in Mexico. You're not going to get
> > > me to make allowances for Tom's wild claims.
> > >
> > > And let me note that you are quick to recognize Tom's
> > > foolishness on almost any topic. But when it comes to guns,
> > > you suddenly treat him as an ally.
> > >
> > > You're thinking like Tom. That should give you pause.
> > >
> > >
> > Not sure how this turned to .22 rimfire, but that happens to
> > be the only lawful personal firearm in Mexico, single shot,
> > with thoroughly researched permit, sold at that nation's one
> > and only outlet, on an Army base. Not a new law either[1].
> >
> > Which mostly satisfies the policy points for firearms of the
> > more restrictive advocates in USA.
> >
> > So how's that working out for Mexico?
> >
> > https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compare/113/rate_of_all_gun_deaths_per_100_000_people/194
> >
> > Roughly 50% higher firearms death rate then we have here.
> >
> > [1]more on that:
> > https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/16/mexicos-gun-control-laws-a-model-for-the-united-states/
> >
> > https://www.mexperience.com/mexicos-strict-gun-laws/
> Frank is nothing more than a mindless tool of the left, He knows absolutely nothing about guns which he believes gives him not only the knowledge but the right to talk about them. This is precisely what I was talking about when he claimed to be an engineer because he had a degree. His belief that no practical knowledge grants him the right to pretend to know something is just the sort of moronish thing that is wrong with the Democrat Party. Before that the Democrats were nothing more than racist thugs. Now they are powerful racist thugs that WILL be stopped. I have faced his kind down my entire life and will continue to do so until my death. Scum needs to know what they are. November can't come fast enough for this country to show what they think of Frank and his bosom buddies. I want to see him talking about income disparity after November.

>I want him to explain why all of the Congressional salary increases and benefit increases came from the Democrats. Seems like they don't care about disparity when it benefits them.

Tommy is lying again. Lie Tommy lie.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm
https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm

I am using Senate salary and control only. I do not know if the Senate and House have to agree on raising salaries or not. But I think both the House and Senate receive the same pay. There have been salary increases under both Republican and democrat control of the Senate. They both want more salary.

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 9:45:35 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 19:42:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >
> >Down, boy, down! What are you so ticked off about? I said it wasn't
> >impossible, but it's not guaranteed. Do you really find that
> >objectionable? Are you _really_ claiming every head shot is a clean kill?
> >
> >And yes, there are ethics to hunting, or there should be. It's
> >considered bad to let an animal suffer needlessly. It's also considered
> >bad to violate the many state laws that proclaim it's illegal to hunt
> >deer with a .22
> >
> >Does your love of guns really trump such basic decency?
>
> As I previously asked you, "And you are an experienced hunter? Killed
> many creatures with various caliber firearms?"

No, I've hunted only a little. That changes nothing in this discussion.

> All this talk about ethics in hunting? What a bunch of namby-pamby
> bull shit. You go out there and you shoot the damned creature, and
> then you cut off his skin to make a rug.

That absolutely does not jibe with hunting deer with a .22, a practice considered
unethical to the point that it's illegal in most states. More likely than not, you'd
shoot the deer and wound it. You'd probably lose it when tracking it, and it would
slowly die and be wasted, unless you count feeding a coyote.

> Or you make sure that your first shot breaks a shoulder so the damned
> thing can't charge and bite you. Tell me the ethics in deliberately
> shooting to break a elk's shoulder, from 2 - 300 yards, in order to
> keep the creature from running away.

Using a .22? Get real.

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/2/2022 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 19:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>>>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>>>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>>>
>>> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
>>> caliber firearms?
>>>
>>> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
>>> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
>>> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>>>
>>>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>>>> unethical and usually illegal.
>>>
>>> Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
>>> example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
>>> shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
>>> that they will eventually die.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
>>>
>>> Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
>>> Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
>>>
>>
>> A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
>> bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
>> border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
>> the emperor is far away'.
>
> (:-) My grandfather, on my father's side, shot a deer every year, just
> what the law allowed. And on occasion two deer if the Game Warden
> happened to be spending time down at the other end of the state (:-)
>
> But solely out of curiosity, there wasn't a Salt Block, fell off the
> truck, in your Exe's back yard? Or maybe a sack of feed grain, or
> such, broke and scattered all over :-?
>

She had a vegetable garden which is roughly the same thing.

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

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 5:32:07 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
> >>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
> >>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
> >>>> "why not when it works?"
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> John B.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
> >>
> >> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
> >> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
> >> protecting the brain and brain stem.
> >
> > And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
> > caliber firearms?
> >
> > From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
> > are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
> > personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
> >
> >> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
> >> unethical and usually illegal.
> >
> > Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
> > example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
> > shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
> > that they will eventually die.
> >
> >>
> >> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
> >
> > Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
> > Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
> >
> A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
> bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
> border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
> the emperor is far away'.

Why would you suppose a man that is so afraid of guns thinks that he knows so much about them? When even another of his extreme leftist friends, John, tells him he is full of shit, he continues on with his contrivances.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 08:18:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/2/2022 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 19:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>>>>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>>>>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>>>>
>>>> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
>>>> caliber firearms?
>>>>
>>>> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
>>>> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
>>>> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>>>>> unethical and usually illegal.
>>>>
>>>> Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
>>>> example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
>>>> shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
>>>> that they will eventually die.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
>>>>
>>>> Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
>>>> Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
>>> bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
>>> border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
>>> the emperor is far away'.
>>
>> (:-) My grandfather, on my father's side, shot a deer every year, just
>> what the law allowed. And on occasion two deer if the Game Warden
>> happened to be spending time down at the other end of the state (:-)
>>
>> But solely out of curiosity, there wasn't a Salt Block, fell off the
>> truck, in your Exe's back yard? Or maybe a sack of feed grain, or
>> such, broke and scattered all over :-?
>>
>
>She had a vegetable garden which is roughly the same thing.

You know, when it gets right down to it, them women folk really are
clever (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/3/2022 6:24 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2022 08:18:29 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/2/2022 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2022 19:32:00 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/2/2022 6:04 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 11:31:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/2/2022 4:20 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 1, 2022 at 6:03:12 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I had some sort of "Uncle", on my mother's side of the family who
>>>>>>>> lived out in the woods somewhere and ate venison (deer meat) year
>>>>>>>> round. Killed them with a .22 rim fire rifle. Said something like,
>>>>>>>> "why not when it works?"
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect your "Uncle" was pulling your chain. Even 50-60-70 years ago, hunters knew the appropriate caliber to use for various size game. And the 22 Long Rifle was not appropriate for anything over small game. Rabbits, squirrels, foxes, raccoons, opossums. Unless you were a world class marksman, target shooter, who could make a head shot at any distance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think even a head shot with a .22 guarantees a clean kill for a
>>>>>> deer, at least beyond point blank range. There's a lot of bone
>>>>>> protecting the brain and brain stem.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are an experienced hunter? Killed many creatures with various
>>>>> caliber firearms?
>>>>>
>>>>> From your own posts that doesn't seem to be true so your suppositions
>>>>> are just that , notions of an individual who has no experience or
>>>>> personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it's impossible; but I do think hunting deer with a .22 is
>>>>>> unethical and usually illegal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethical? Hunting? The usual recommendation for shooting deer, for
>>>>> example, is to try for a side on shot and aim a bit back from their
>>>>> shoulder and even if you miss the heart you will damage their lungs so
>>>>> that they will eventually die.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If John's uncle was eating venison year round, he was probably poaching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course he was. How else could someone eat venison all year round.
>>>>> Which has little bearing on his shooting 'em in the head.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A long history of that. One of my exes took deer out her
>>>> bedroom window for years with a bow. That was up on the UP
>>>> border. As the old saying goes, 'the mountain is high and
>>>> the emperor is far away'.
>>>
>>> (:-) My grandfather, on my father's side, shot a deer every year, just
>>> what the law allowed. And on occasion two deer if the Game Warden
>>> happened to be spending time down at the other end of the state (:-)
>>>
>>> But solely out of curiosity, there wasn't a Salt Block, fell off the
>>> truck, in your Exe's back yard? Or maybe a sack of feed grain, or
>>> such, broke and scattered all over :-?
>>>
>>
>> She had a vegetable garden which is roughly the same thing.
>
> You know, when it gets right down to it, them women folk really are
> clever (:-)
>

It started when deer eating her garden got her pissed off.

But when she butchered it out of season and the sky didn't
fall, a pattern developed...

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> > numbers are the direct result.
>
> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> issues their military with .223 repeaters.

About that:

"Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...

[He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "

"Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."

"The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."

.... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."

"That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."

He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.

- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >
>> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>> > numbers are the direct result.
>>
>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>
>About that:
>
>"Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>
>[He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>
>"Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>
>"The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>
>... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>
>"That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>
>He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Yup. A weapon of war...
Just like

The U.S. Musket Model 1795
The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
cartridge
Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
Carbines were purchased by the Army
The .45 caliber Model 1884
The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
The 1903 Springfield
The M1 Garand Rifle
The Thompson submachine gun
The M3 submachine gun
The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
The M4 rifle
The "M-16"

For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
pistols

So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
is nearly unbelievable.

And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.

But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
Military.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >
> >> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> >> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> >> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> >> > numbers are the direct result.
> >>
> >> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> >> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
> >
> >About that:
> >
> >"Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
> >
> >[He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
> >
> >"Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t.."
> >
> >"The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
> >
> >... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
> >
> >"That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
> >
> >He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski
> Yup. A weapon of war...
> Just like
>
> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
> cartridge
> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
> Carbines were purchased by the Army
> The .45 caliber Model 1884
> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
> The 1903 Springfield
> The M1 Garand Rifle
> The Thompson submachine gun
> The M3 submachine gun
> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
> The M4 rifle
> The "M-16"
>
> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
> pistols
>
> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
> is nearly unbelievable.

Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.

As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.

John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.

>
> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.

Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.

And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.

>
> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
> Military.

I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>> >> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>> >> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>> >> > numbers are the direct result.
>> >>
>> >> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>> >> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>> >
>> >About that:
>> >
>> >"Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>> >
>> >[He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>> >
>> >"Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>> >
>> >"The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>> >
>> >... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>> >
>> >"That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>> >
>> >He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>> >
>> >- Frank Krygowski
>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>> Just like
>>
>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>> cartridge
>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>> The 1903 Springfield
>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>> The Thompson submachine gun
>> The M3 submachine gun
>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>> The M4 rifle
>> The "M-16"
>>
>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>> pistols
>>
>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>> is nearly unbelievable.
>
>Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>
>As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>
>John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>
Well, firstly, I was responding to Frank's argument, saying that Yes,
the M-16 is a war weapon and General So and so said so.
And I pointed that By his and the Generals description "war weapons"
have existed in the U.S. since at least the 1700's.

I didn't mention it but the Civil war, a 4 year war, fought largely
with muzzle loading, black powder, weapons, resulted in the highest
level of war deaths in the history of the U.S.

>
>
>>
>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>
>Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.

Nope, I'll stand by my comment. And while I didn't hob-nob with
Generals "down tha O Club" I was in a position, from time to time, to
watch senior officers work and in broad terms they deal with the Big
Picture.

I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.

Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
being performed on all the aircraft. And as a result the reports I
made went to the Maintenance Manager, a full colonel, and by extension
to the Wing Commander and to Air Division, probably a Brigadier
General..

These people deal in percentages. If, for example my morning report
showed that Squadron A's airplane's in commission was , oh say, 89% of
the total assigned, I got called in to the Colonel... "Why is A
Squadron so low?" "Well Sir there is a problem with the squelch valve
on 6 of their airplanes, and Base Supply doesn't have any new ones".
"Well, what is being done to rectify the matter?"

In short the Maintenance Commander doesn't have a clue of what a
Squelch Valve, nor does he care. He wants the problem identified and
solved.

>And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.

But I wasn't objecting to any claims. And I am aware that various
versions of the various models have different firing options.

I fired the M-16 when the A.F. first issued them, 1960-something, and
frankly I thought it was a POS :-) This was the original model without
the bolt closer and of course when I put the magazine in I carefully
let the bolt slid forward and of course the damned thing wouldn't go
into battery and wouldn't shoot.

>
>>
>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>> Military.
>
>I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.

On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>>>
>>>> About that:
>>>>
>>>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>>>>
>>>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>>>>
>>>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>>>>
>>>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>>>>
>>>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>>>>
>>>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>>>>
>>>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>>> Just like
>>>
>>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>>> cartridge
>>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>>> The 1903 Springfield
>>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>>> The Thompson submachine gun
>>> The M3 submachine gun
>>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>>> The M4 rifle
>>> The "M-16"
>>>
>>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>>> pistols
>>>
>>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>>> is nearly unbelievable.
>>
>> Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>>
>> As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>>
>> John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>>
> Well, firstly, I was responding to Frank's argument, saying that Yes,
> the M-16 is a war weapon and General So and so said so.
> And I pointed that By his and the Generals description "war weapons"
> have existed in the U.S. since at least the 1700's.
>
> I didn't mention it but the Civil war, a 4 year war, fought largely
> with muzzle loading, black powder, weapons, resulted in the highest
> level of war deaths in the history of the U.S.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>>
>> Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
>
> Nope, I'll stand by my comment. And while I didn't hob-nob with
> Generals "down tha O Club" I was in a position, from time to time, to
> watch senior officers work and in broad terms they deal with the Big
> Picture.
>
> I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
> simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
> was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
> being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
>
> Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
> being performed on all the aircraft. And as a result the reports I
> made went to the Maintenance Manager, a full colonel, and by extension
> to the Wing Commander and to Air Division, probably a Brigadier
> General..
>
> These people deal in percentages. If, for example my morning report
> showed that Squadron A's airplane's in commission was , oh say, 89% of
> the total assigned, I got called in to the Colonel... "Why is A
> Squadron so low?" "Well Sir there is a problem with the squelch valve
> on 6 of their airplanes, and Base Supply doesn't have any new ones".
> "Well, what is being done to rectify the matter?"
>
> In short the Maintenance Commander doesn't have a clue of what a
> Squelch Valve, nor does he care. He wants the problem identified and
> solved.
>
>> And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
>
> But I wasn't objecting to any claims. And I am aware that various
> versions of the various models have different firing options.
>
> I fired the M-16 when the A.F. first issued them, 1960-something, and
> frankly I thought it was a POS :-) This was the original model without
> the bolt closer and of course when I put the magazine in I carefully
> let the bolt slid forward and of course the damned thing wouldn't go
> into battery and wouldn't shoot.
>
>>
>>>
>>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>>> Military.
>>
>> I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
>
> No, he was a Major General, a two star. He entered the Academy in 1968
> and retired in 2006. 38 years. So his performance was probably best
> rated as ordinary. Or at least his decorations would indicate that he
> never led troops in combat.

On 6/5/2022 2:37 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>
>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>>
>>> About that:
>>>
>>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>>>
>>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>>>
>>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>>>
>>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>>>
>>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>>>
>>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>>>
>>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>> Just like
>>
>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>> cartridge
>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>> The 1903 Springfield
>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>> The Thompson submachine gun
>> The M3 submachine gun
>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>> The M4 rifle
>> The "M-16"
>>
>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>> pistols
>>
>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>> is nearly unbelievable.
>
> Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>
> As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>
> John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>
> Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
>
> And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
>
>
>
>>
>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>> Military.
>
> I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
>
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

Clyde Barrow was killed before the 1934 Firearms Act was put
into effect. His BAR was as legal as Mr Capone's Thompson,
at the time.

Regarding M1911 pistols, they're perfectly fine in .45. El
Jefe says the danger is from smaller 9mm.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos

As for semi light rifles, so was the M1 Garand in its day
and presently no one is more deadly than US snipers with
Barrett single shot rifles. They can 'reach out and touch' a
man at 1000+ yards. Which doesn't make those a 'sturmgewehr'
either.

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

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:47:08 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/5/2022 2:37 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> >>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> >>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> >>>>> numbers are the direct result.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> >>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
> >>>
> >>> About that:
> >>>
> >>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
> >>>
> >>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
> >>>
> >>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
> >>>
> >>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
> >>>
> >>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
> >>>
> >>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
> >>>
> >>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> Yup. A weapon of war...
> >> Just like
> >>
> >> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
> >> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
> >> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
> >> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
> >> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
> >> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
> >> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
> >> cartridge
> >> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
> >> Carbines were purchased by the Army
> >> The .45 caliber Model 1884
> >> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The 1903 Springfield
> >> The M1 Garand Rifle
> >> The Thompson submachine gun
> >> The M3 submachine gun
> >> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
> >> The M4 rifle
> >> The "M-16"
> >>
> >> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
> >> pistols
> >>
> >> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
> >> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
> >> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
> >> is nearly unbelievable.
> >
> > Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had.. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only.. It replaced the Thompson.
> >
> > As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
> >
> > John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
> >> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
> >> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
> >
> > Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
> >
> > And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
> >> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
> >> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
> >> Military.
> >
> > I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> Clyde Barrow was killed before the 1934 Firearms Act was put
> into effect. His BAR was as legal as Mr Capone's Thompson,
> at the time.
>
> Regarding M1911 pistols, they're perfectly fine in .45. El
> Jefe says the danger is from smaller 9mm.
>
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos
>
> As for semi light rifles, so was the M1 Garand in its day
> and presently no one is more deadly than US snipers with
> Barrett single shot rifles. They can 'reach out and touch' a
> man at 1000+ yards. Which doesn't make those a 'sturmgewehr'
> either.

Why do you suppose that Biden even mentions the 9 mm? It, like the .38 police special is a SAFE weapon. If you shoot someone with it the chances are that the bullet would stick in the target and not go through it and possibly hit someone else. The more powerful rounds like the .357 Magnum, the .40 and the .45 1911 can do that.

This is like that maniac Biden's claims that Cannons were against the law when the Constitution was adopted. The ENTIRE US navy was composed of privateers all of whom had privately owned cannons. There isn't a word of truth that comes from Biden though I must admit that Frank makes Biden look like the face of truth itself. Even when Biden is saying that he was accepted into the Naval academy at Annapolis he makes Frank look the very soul of the devil.

On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> >
> > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> >
> > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> >
> > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> >
> > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> >
> > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > certification test.
> >
> >
> Sorry to hear!
>
> Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> by what appears to be something quite benign.
>
> Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.

Don't you find it curious that Frank didn't mention his friends age or if he had been recently vaccinated? I reported that a friend of mine died shortly after being required by his HOA to get vaccinated and that was treated as no big deal despite the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered no head injuries, had just turned 60 and had total loss of brain function. Now we learn that Frank's friend (unstated age or vaccination status) was injured NOT by his age or from vaccine aggravated myopathy causing him to fall without any control but because supposedly he couldn't twist his ankle 10 degrees and a helmet didn't do what they are specifically designed to do.. Apparently the mechanical engineer doesn't trust the abilities of other mechanical engineers.

As for age, there are many very serious illnesses that come to some people with age and stroke is one of them. Another is aneurism which is directly connected to age.

Isn't it weird that Frank, like the entire Democrat Party, likes to tell only the half of the story that fits his prognostications?

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> > >
> > > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> > >
> > > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> > >
> > > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> > >
> > > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> > >
> > > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > > certification test.
> > >
> > >
> > Sorry to hear!
> >
> > Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> > folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> > by what appears to be something quite benign.
> >
> > Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.
>
> Don't you find it curious that Frank didn't mention his friends age or if he had been recently vaccinated? I reported that a friend of mine died shortly after being required by his HOA to get vaccinated and that was treated as no big deal despite the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered no head injuries, had just turned 60 and had total loss of brain function. Now we learn that Frank's friend (unstated age or vaccination status) was injured NOT by his age or from vaccine aggravated myopathy causing him to fall without any control but because supposedly he couldn't twist his ankle 10 degrees and a helmet didn't do what they are specifically designed to do. Apparently the mechanical engineer doesn't trust the abilities of other mechanical engineers.
>
> As for age, there are many very serious illnesses that come to some people with age and stroke is one of them. Another is aneurism which is directly connected to age.
>
> Isn't it weird that Frank, like the entire Democrat Party, likes to tell only the half of the story that fits his prognostications?

What a weird 'conversation' is this, f*cking hell what is the matter with you all. Bunch of pathetic old farts.

Lou

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:34:18 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > > > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > > > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > > > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> > > >
> > > > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > > > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > > > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> > > >
> > > > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > > > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > > > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > > > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > > > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> > > >
> > > > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> > > >
> > > > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > > > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > > > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > > > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > > > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> > > >
> > > > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > > > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > > > certification test.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sorry to hear!
> > >
> > > Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> > > folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> > > by what appears to be something quite benign.
> > >
> > > Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.
> >
> > Don't you find it curious that Frank didn't mention his friends age or if he had been recently vaccinated? I reported that a friend of mine died shortly after being required by his HOA to get vaccinated and that was treated as no big deal despite the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered no head injuries, had just turned 60 and had total loss of brain function. Now we learn that Frank's friend (unstated age or vaccination status) was injured NOT by his age or from vaccine aggravated myopathy causing him to fall without any control but because supposedly he couldn't twist his ankle 10 degrees and a helmet didn't do what they are specifically designed to do. Apparently the mechanical engineer doesn't trust the abilities of other mechanical engineers.
> >
> > As for age, there are many very serious illnesses that come to some people with age and stroke is one of them. Another is aneurism which is directly connected to age.
> >
> > Isn't it weird that Frank, like the entire Democrat Party, likes to tell only the half of the story that fits his prognostications?
> What a weird 'conversation' is this, f*cking hell what is the matter with you all. Bunch of pathetic old farts.

Lou, I can't say that I disagree with you. But it is important to know what the hell sort of stories are coming out of Frank. His friend fell down, hit his head and died despite wearing a helmet under EXACTLY the sort of conditions that a helmet is supposed to be designed for. OK, quite possible. It nearly happened to me. But old people are likely to have head injuries totally independent of trauma. And I was just riding with a man pretty much in the prime of life that died from the same injuries attributed to covid-19 vaccines.

So before you go upon some anti-helmet diatribe don't you think you should have all the facts. The excuse that an experienced rider couldn't get his foot out of a clipless pedal is pretty unbelievable don't you think?

A man died and that is always unfortunate. It will someday be me and you.

Do you want someday, someone to blame your cycling for your own death?

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 8:07:52 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:34:18 AM UTC-7, Lou Holtman wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+2, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Friday, May 6, 2022 at 10:22:21 AM UTC-7, Roger Merriman wrote:
> > > > Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > I've been an avid cyclist for nearly 50 years. I've been heavily
> > > > > involved in a fairly large bike club for over 40 of those years. During
> > > > > that time I had two friends who died of heart attacks while riding, and
> > > > > I've had eight friends or acquaintances who died in motor vehicle crashes.
> > > > >
> > > > > But despite knowing and riding with hundreds of people, I've never had a
> > > > > friend die from a bike crash. Until now. He was a fellow club member as
> > > > > well as a colleague from work, who retired before I did.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've been told that he and his wife were riding on the country road
> > > > > where they live. She was riding in front when she came to a stop to chat
> > > > > with a neighbor. She heard a crash behind her and turned to see her
> > > > > husband lying on the road. She suspects that as he stopped, he failed to
> > > > > unclip from his pedal. He'd been having some trouble with that pedal.
> > > > >
> > > > > He toppled and hit his head. He died very soon of the brain injury.
> > > > >
> > > > > As usual, the information regarding his death does not mention a helmet,
> > > > > because he was wearing one. (If he had _not_ worn one, "He was not
> > > > > wearing a helmet" would have been in all the publicity. That's true even
> > > > > though helmets are never mentioned for the many more pedestrians or
> > > > > motorists who die of brain injury.)
> > > > >
> > > > > My friend's helmet failed to protect him from the simplest type of
> > > > > zero-speed fall, the one that supposedly informed the official helmet
> > > > > certification test.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry to hear!
> > > >
> > > > Yes it’s hugely variable as to what a injury will do, or put it away some
> > > > folks walk away from really high energy events and others are harmed/killed
> > > > by what appears to be something quite benign.
> > > >
> > > > Essentially our knowledge is clearly lacking.
> > >
> > > Don't you find it curious that Frank didn't mention his friends age or if he had been recently vaccinated? I reported that a friend of mine died shortly after being required by his HOA to get vaccinated and that was treated as no big deal despite the fact that he wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered no head injuries, had just turned 60 and had total loss of brain function. Now we learn that Frank's friend (unstated age or vaccination status) was injured NOT by his age or from vaccine aggravated myopathy causing him to fall without any control but because supposedly he couldn't twist his ankle 10 degrees and a helmet didn't do what they are specifically designed to do. Apparently the mechanical engineer doesn't trust the abilities of other mechanical engineers.
> > >
> > > As for age, there are many very serious illnesses that come to some people with age and stroke is one of them. Another is aneurism which is directly connected to age.
> > >
> > > Isn't it weird that Frank, like the entire Democrat Party, likes to tell only the half of the story that fits his prognostications?
> > What a weird 'conversation' is this, f*cking hell what is the matter with you all. Bunch of pathetic old farts.
> Lou, I can't say that I disagree with you. But it is important to know what the hell sort of stories are coming out of Frank. His friend fell down, hit his head and died despite wearing a helmet under EXACTLY the sort of conditions that a helmet is supposed to be designed for. OK, quite possible. It nearly happened to me. But old people are likely to have head injuries totally independent of trauma. And I was just riding with a man pretty much in the prime of life that died from the same injuries attributed to covid-19 vaccines.
>
> So before you go upon some anti-helmet diatribe don't you think you should have all the facts. The excuse that an experienced rider couldn't get his foot out of a clipless pedal is pretty unbelievable don't you think?
>
> A man died and that is always unfortunate. It will someday be me and you.
>
> Do you want someday, someone to blame your cycling for your own death?

Whatever. Wishing someone to commit suicide just because he doesn't agree with you is wrong by any standard even as a sick joke.

Lou

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:05:03 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> >> >> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> >> >> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> >> >> > numbers are the direct result.
> >> >>
> >> >> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> >> >> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
> >> >
> >> >About that:
> >> >
> >> >"Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
> >> >
> >> >[He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
> >> >
> >> >"Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
> >> >
> >> >"The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
> >> >
> >> >... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
> >> >
> >> >"That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
> >> >
> >> >He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
> >> >
> >> >- Frank Krygowski
> >> Yup. A weapon of war...
> >> Just like
> >>
> >> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
> >> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
> >> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
> >> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
> >> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
> >> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
> >> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
> >> cartridge
> >> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
> >> Carbines were purchased by the Army
> >> The .45 caliber Model 1884
> >> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The 1903 Springfield
> >> The M1 Garand Rifle
> >> The Thompson submachine gun
> >> The M3 submachine gun
> >> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
> >> The M4 rifle
> >> The "M-16"
> >>
> >> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
> >> pistols
> >>
> >> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
> >> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
> >> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
> >> is nearly unbelievable.
> >
> >Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
> >
> >As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
> >
> >John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
> >
> Well, firstly, I was responding to Frank's argument, saying that Yes,
> the M-16 is a war weapon and General So and so said so.
> And I pointed that By his and the Generals description "war weapons"
> have existed in the U.S. since at least the 1700's.

Yes. One could argue the very first gun ever made back in China with a hollow bamboo stick and newly invented gunpowder and a rock was used as a war weapon. So every gun on earth ever since is a war weapon. Kind of like maybe the very first automobiles were used in races to drive fast and speed. So every car since is a race car.

>
> I didn't mention it but the Civil war, a 4 year war, fought largely
> with muzzle loading, black powder, weapons, resulted in the highest
> level of war deaths in the history of the U.S.

I have heard this statement many times in my life. But I always found it odd that the proponents of this nugget of wisdom always seem to leave off the very important point that ALL of the deaths on BOTH sides in the Civil War were American. Technically I guess since even though the Confederacy set itself up as an independent country, it was not. The numbers are roughly 360k Union, 260k Confederate. 620k total deaths. WW2 killed 405k Americans. So I would very correctly point out that WW2 killed more Americans than the Civil War. 405k compared to 360k. Somewhat similar timeframe. 4 years.

> >
> >
> >>
> >> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
> >> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
> >> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
> >
> >Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
> Nope, I'll stand by my comment. And while I didn't hob-nob with
> Generals "down tha O Club" I was in a position, from time to time, to
> watch senior officers work and in broad terms they deal with the Big
> Picture.
>
> I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
> simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
> was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
> being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
>
> Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
> being performed on all the aircraft. And as a result the reports I
> made went to the Maintenance Manager, a full colonel, and by extension
> to the Wing Commander and to Air Division, probably a Brigadier
> General..
>
> These people deal in percentages. If, for example my morning report
> showed that Squadron A's airplane's in commission was , oh say, 89% of
> the total assigned, I got called in to the Colonel... "Why is A
> Squadron so low?" "Well Sir there is a problem with the squelch valve
> on 6 of their airplanes, and Base Supply doesn't have any new ones".
> "Well, what is being done to rectify the matter?"
>
> In short the Maintenance Commander doesn't have a clue of what a
> Squelch Valve, nor does he care. He wants the problem identified and
> solved.
> >And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
> But I wasn't objecting to any claims. And I am aware that various
> versions of the various models have different firing options.
>
> I fired the M-16 when the A.F. first issued them, 1960-something, and
> frankly I thought it was a POS :-) This was the original model without
> the bolt closer and of course when I put the magazine in I carefully
> let the bolt slid forward and of course the damned thing wouldn't go
> into battery and wouldn't shoot.
> >
> >>
> >> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
> >> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
> >> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
> >> Military.
> >
> >I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
> No, he was a Major General, a two star. He entered the Academy in 1968
> and retired in 2006. 38 years. So his performance was probably best
> rated as ordinary. Or at least his decorations would indicate that he
> never led troops in combat.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/5/2022 2:37 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> >>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> >>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> >>>>> numbers are the direct result.
> >>>>
> >>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> >>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
> >>>
> >>> About that:
> >>>
> >>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
> >>>
> >>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
> >>>
> >>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
> >>>
> >>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
> >>>
> >>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
> >>>
> >>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
> >>>
> >>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
> >>>
> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> Yup. A weapon of war...
> >> Just like
> >>
> >> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
> >> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
> >> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
> >> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
> >> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
> >> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
> >> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
> >> cartridge
> >> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
> >> Carbines were purchased by the Army
> >> The .45 caliber Model 1884
> >> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
> >> The 1903 Springfield
> >> The M1 Garand Rifle
> >> The Thompson submachine gun
> >> The M3 submachine gun
> >> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
> >> The M4 rifle
> >> The "M-16"
> >>
> >> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
> >> pistols
> >>
> >> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
> >> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
> >> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
> >> is nearly unbelievable.
> >
> > Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had.. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only.. It replaced the Thompson.
> >
> > As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
> >
> > John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
> >> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
> >> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
> >
> > Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
> >
> > And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
> >> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
> >> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
> >> Military.
> >
> > I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> Clyde Barrow was killed before the 1934 Firearms Act was put
> into effect. His BAR was as legal as Mr Capone's Thompson,
> at the time.

OK. Seems odd today that we did not regulate military firearms a bit better. Did the US also allow anyone and everyone to go buy hand grenades and mortars?

>
> Regarding M1911 pistols, they're perfectly fine in .45. El
> Jefe says the danger is from smaller 9mm.
>
> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos

I suspect Biden mentioned 9mm pistols because they are the most common caliber pistol in the whole world. Far outpacing the 45 ACP. Kind of like AR-15 rifles seems to be the most common rifle in the USA. And the most common used in mass killings. 9mm pistols are popular because of their high capacity magazines. Full size models have 18-19-20 rounds. With a 45 ACP in double stack magazine, you would only get about 13 rounds or so. And then you would need the hands of an NBA center to hold it because the grip, with the magazine inside, would be the diameter of a soda can. So high capacity 45 ACP pistols is not a worry. But high capacity 9mm pistols is with us today.

>
> As for semi light rifles, so was the M1 Garand in its day
> and presently no one is more deadly than US snipers with
> Barrett single shot rifles.

On 6/5/2022 5:28 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:47:08 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 6/5/2022 2:37 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>>>>
>>>>> About that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>>>>>
>>>>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>>>>>
>>>>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>>>>>
>>>>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>>>> Just like
>>>>
>>>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>>>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>>>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>>>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>>>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>>>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>>>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>>>> cartridge
>>>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>>>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>>>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>>>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>>>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>>>> The 1903 Springfield
>>>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>>>> The Thompson submachine gun
>>>> The M3 submachine gun
>>>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>>>> The M4 rifle
>>>> The "M-16"
>>>>
>>>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>>>> pistols
>>>>
>>>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>>>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>>>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>>>> is nearly unbelievable.
>>>
>>> Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>>>
>>> As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>>>
>>> John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>>>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>>>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>>>
>>> Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
>>>
>>> And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>>>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>>>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>>>> Military.
>>>
>>> I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>> Clyde Barrow was killed before the 1934 Firearms Act was put
>> into effect. His BAR was as legal as Mr Capone's Thompson,
>> at the time.
>
> OK. Seems odd today that we did not regulate military firearms a bit better. Did the US also allow anyone and everyone to go buy hand grenades and mortars?
>
>
>
>>
>> Regarding M1911 pistols, they're perfectly fine in .45. El
>> Jefe says the danger is from smaller 9mm.
>>
>> https://www.nraila.org/articles/20220602/biden-pushes-9mm-handgun-ban-harris-wants-to-ban-common-semi-autos
>
> I suspect Biden mentioned 9mm pistols because they are the most common caliber pistol in the whole world. Far outpacing the 45 ACP. Kind of like AR-15 rifles seems to be the most common rifle in the USA. And the most common used in mass killings. 9mm pistols are popular because of their high capacity magazines. Full size models have 18-19-20 rounds. With a 45 ACP in double stack magazine, you would only get about 13 rounds or so. And then you would need the hands of an NBA center to hold it because the grip, with the magazine inside, would be the diameter of a soda can. So high capacity 45 ACP pistols is not a worry. But high capacity 9mm pistols is with us today.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As for semi light rifles, so was the M1 Garand in its day
>> and presently no one is more deadly than US snipers with
>> Barrett single shot rifles.
>
> The Barret 50 caliber sniper rifles are NOT single shot rifles. Unless you mean semi auto one pull of the trigger, one shot fired. Barrett 50 caliber rifles have a box magazine of 5 or so shells. And yes I know you can as an individual citizen, buy a Barrett sniper rifle in 50 caliber. A military weapon owned by non military citizens. I could and would argue that is wrong. But you could also argue the sniper rifle is basically a hunting rifle. So....
>
> As for single shot rifles, in the old time days, the US Army Springfield single shot rifle was used. And buffalo hunters used the Sharps rifle. Today, the most common, or famous single shot, is the Ruger #1.
>
> Bolt action rifles, with magazines, were used for sniper rifles in all of the wars in the 20th century. Although maybe the Barrett had made it to Iraq.
>
>
>
> They can 'reach out and touch' a
>> man at 1000+ yards. Which doesn't make those a 'sturmgewehr'
>> either.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:31:37 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 21:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:14:52 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>>>>
>>>>> About that:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Major General Eaton was the commander in charge of training Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, so he definitely knows what he’s talking about when it comes to weaponry. " ...
>>>>>
>>>>> [He said on Twitter]: “As the former Commanding General of the Infantry Center at Fort Benning and Chief of Infantry, I know a bit about weapons. Let me state unequivocally — For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war. "
>>>>>
>>>>> "Those opposed to assault weapon bans continue to play games with AR-15 semantics, pretending there’s some meaningful differences between it and the M4 carbine that the military carries. There really aren’t."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The military began a transition from the M16 to the M4, an improved M16, some years ago. The AR-15 is essentially the civilian version of the M16. The M4 is really close to the M16, and the AR-15."
>>>>>
>>>>> ... "But our troops usually use single shot, not burst fire. You’re able to fire a much more accurate (deadly) shot, that way. Note: you can buy our Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight on Amazon. So troops usually select the same fire option available on AR-15."
>>>>>
>>>>> "That is why the AR-15 is ACCURATELY CALLED a ‘weapon of war.’ It is a very deadly weapon with the same basic functionality that our troops use to kill the enemy. Don’t take the bait when anti-gun-safety folks argue about it. They know it’s true. Now you do too."
>>>>>
>>>>> He sounds fairly well qualified to speak on this issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> Yup. A weapon of war...
>>>> Just like
>>>>
>>>> The U.S. Musket Model 1795
>>>> The U.S. Model 1842 Musket
>>>> The Caliber .54, Model 1841 Rifle
>>>> The 1855 .58 caliber rifled musket.
>>>> The Sharps Rifle, which fired a .54 Caliber paper cartridge
>>>> The Spenser which fired a metallic cartridge
>>>> The Burnside, which used a unique tapered .54 Caliber metallic
>>>> cartridge
>>>> Note: more than 95,000 Sharps, 80,000 Spencer, and 54,000 Burnside
>>>> Carbines were purchased by the Army
>>>> The .45 caliber Model 1884
>>>> The 1896 .30 caliber Krag-Jorgensen
>>>> The Model 1899 Krag-Jorgensen
>>>> The 1903 Springfield
>>>> The M1 Garand Rifle
>>>> The Thompson submachine gun
>>>> The M3 submachine gun
>>>> The Browning Automatic Rifle (commonly known as the BAR)
>>>> The M4 rifle
>>>> The "M-16"
>>>>
>>>> For want of space I haven't listed special purpose sidearms nor
>>>> pistols
>>>>
>>>> So, obviously both you and your reference's singling out the AR type
>>>> of weapon as some sort of unique "military weapon" simply illustrates
>>>> a level of stupidity, or to be kind, perhaps a lack of knowledge, that
>>>> is nearly unbelievable.
>>>
>>> Not really sure what your argument here is John. The BAR was developed by John Browning for the military. And it was never sold to civilians. Although Bonnie and Clyde did use it I believe. They must have gotten ahold of one somehow. I think they cut off the stock. Probably Clyde since I doubt Bonnie could fire the 30-06 in auto mode. Which is the only mode the BAR had. Full machine gun. There was no semi auto single shooting with the BAR. The Thompson was invented by a Army general. After WW1 ended. Designed for trench fighting. Kill lots of soldiers quick in the trenches with a machine gun. Thompson was full auto only too. M3 was obviously for the military only. It replaced the Thompson.
>>>
>>> As for the AR-15, it was invented by Armalite in the mid 1950s by Eugene Stoner. He was the leader of the team. ArmaLite submitted the AR-15 (and its predecessor the AR-10) to the military when the military issued a request for proposal, product. The military wanted companies to make and submit a military rifle for them to evaluate whether they would buy them. So I am having a hard time understanding why anyone would argue the AR-15 is not a military weapon.
>>>
>>> John, you forgot to add the Colt M1911 pistol to your list. It was designed by Colt and John Browning back in the early 1900s for the military. The military wanted a 45 caliber pistol in semi auto. Colt and John Browning were the winners of the trials. Pistol for the military.
>>>
>> Well, firstly, I was responding to Frank's argument, saying that Yes,
>> the M-16 is a war weapon and General So and so said so.
>> And I pointed that By his and the Generals description "war weapons"
>> have existed in the U.S. since at least the 1700's.
>>
>> I didn't mention it but the Civil war, a 4 year war, fought largely
>> with muzzle loading, black powder, weapons, resulted in the highest
>> level of war deaths in the history of the U.S.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And, I might add, the claim that "Oh! I was a General I know" is
>>>> factious at best. People of that rank are almost totally divorced from
>>>> the nitty-gritty of the every day job. It isn't their job.
>>>
>>> Yes, the day to day intricate details of training are not General work. But he would have a good understanding of the overall plan. Better than the detail trainers. Because he sees all the pieces coming together to execute the master plan. Unlike the daily trainer guys who only see their one small piece of the plan. So I give him a lot more credit than you do. What he said makes a whole lot of sense.
>>
>> Nope, I'll stand by my comment. And while I didn't hob-nob with
>> Generals "down tha O Club" I was in a position, from time to time, to
>> watch senior officers work and in broad terms they deal with the Big
>> Picture.
>>
>> I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
>> simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
>> was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
>> being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
>>
>> Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
>> being performed on all the aircraft. And as a result the reports I
>> made went to the Maintenance Manager, a full colonel, and by extension
>> to the Wing Commander and to Air Division, probably a Brigadier
>> General..
>>
>> These people deal in percentages. If, for example my morning report
>> showed that Squadron A's airplane's in commission was , oh say, 89% of
>> the total assigned, I got called in to the Colonel... "Why is A
>> Squadron so low?" "Well Sir there is a problem with the squelch valve
>> on 6 of their airplanes, and Base Supply doesn't have any new ones".
>> "Well, what is being done to rectify the matter?"
>>
>> In short the Maintenance Commander doesn't have a clue of what a
>> Squelch Valve, nor does he care. He wants the problem identified and
>> solved.
>>
>>> And why are you objecting to his claim that the military uses its M4 and M16 rifles on semi auto mode? Because they want to be accurate. Are you aware that the military modified their M16 and M4 rifles to have a three round burst mode? Because the military discovered firing on full machine gun mode just wasted bullets and did not hit anything. They quickly realized shooting fewer shots with more control makes them more accurate.
>>
>> But I wasn't objecting to any claims. And I am aware that various
>> versions of the various models have different firing options.
>>
>> I fired the M-16 when the A.F. first issued them, 1960-something, and
>> frankly I thought it was a POS :-) This was the original model without
>> the bolt closer and of course when I put the magazine in I carefully
>> let the bolt slid forward and of course the damned thing wouldn't go
>> into battery and wouldn't shoot.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, I will admit, the General does make a very useful addition to
>>>> your anti-gun arguments. After it sounds pretty important..."The
>>>> General says...". Particularly to those who know nothing about the
>>>> Military.
>>>
>>> I am going to give some credence to the General. He made the military his life's work. I suspect he learned something about the military. Now he was only a one star General. Not a five star General. So he was not smart enough to rise up too high. So maybe he doesn't know anything about the military. Maybe the military makes so many Generals that only the smart ones are able to get out of the dumb one star General pool.
>>
>> No, he was a Major General, a two star. He entered the Academy in 1968
>> and retired in 2006. 38 years. So his performance was probably best
>> rated as ordinary. Or at least his decorations would indicate that he
>> never led troops in combat.
>
>"He never led troops in combat," so you pretend he has no knowledge of
>guns.
>
>For comparison, John, you said your qualifications were these:
> > I was "NCOIC of the Statistic Section of Work Load Control", or in
> > simple terms the guy in charge of the section that kept track of what
> > was going on in the maintenance division of an Air Force Wing - a Wing
> > being essentially all the operational aircraft on a base.
> >
> > Basically I kept track of, logged, and reported, all the maintenance
> > being performed on all the aircraft.
>
>I don't doubt the importance of such a position; but it sounds like you
>never led troops in combat either. And your top rank was ... what,
>again? Was it not far, far below this general's?
>
>I admit, I'm not an expert on military rank. But to me, it looks like
>you're far below his qualifications, based on your own standards.
>
>You've personally disqualified yourself from commenting.