On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 15:05:25 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Well, Yes, for all practical purposes, all the dead in the Civil war
were "American", Just as all the dead in the 1776 fracas were English
(or maybe British) and of course the dead in the
Creek War 1813–1814
First Seminole War 1817–1818
Black Hawk War 1832 47
Second Seminole War 1835–1842
Mexican–American War 1846–1848
Cayuse War 1847–1856
Rogue River Wars 1851–1856
Yakima War 1855–1856
Third Seminole War 1855–1858
Or the 15 other "wars" fought against "Americans".
(and probably some I missed)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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.
>
> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
> (again?)
>
> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>
> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
> career, in command of a combat unit.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 21:45:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
>> (again?)
>>
>> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
>> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
>> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
>> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>>
>> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
>> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
>> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
>> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
>> career, in command of a combat unit.
>
>You disregarded that general's assessment of the AR-15 platform because
>you said he never led troops in combat.
>
>I'm disregarding your assessements for precisely the same reason:
>because you've never led troops in combat. You have disqualified yourself.
>
>Don't dance around, Tommy-like, and pretend you didn't say what you
>said. The internet remembers.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:50:43 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
> (again?)
>
> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>
> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
> career, in command of a combat unit.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:13:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 21:45:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>
> >> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
> >> (again?)
> >>
> >> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
> >> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
> >> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
> >> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
> >>
> >> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
> >> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
> >> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
> >> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
> >> career, in command of a combat unit.
> >
> >You disregarded that general's assessment of the AR-15 platform because
> >you said he never led troops in combat.
> >
> >I'm disregarding your assessements for precisely the same reason:
> >because you've never led troops in combat. You have disqualified yourself.
> >
> >Don't dance around, Tommy-like, and pretend you didn't say what you
> >said. The internet remembers.
> Yup, the Internet remembers.
> Your General denounced the AR as a war weapon and I agreed. Actual
> quote "Yup. A weapon of war..."
>
> I then went on to state that from the earliest days of the U.S. war
> weapons have been produced and civilians have been allowed to own
> them.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 20:42:12 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 7:50:43 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, 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.
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
>> (again?)
>>
>> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
>> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
>> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
>> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>>
>> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
>> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
>> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
>> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
>> career, in command of a combat unit.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>John up above you stated he started West Point Academy in 1968. West Point is a 4 year college? So he got out in 1972. Near the tail end of Vietnam. I'm guessing he was a subordinate for a few years under some other officer. And then Vietnam ended. Next USA fighting was when Bush1 invaded Iraq I think. Maybe he was doing something else then and missed his chance. It was a short war. Then Bush2 took us back to Iraq. Or was it Afghanistan. I guess he missed his chance to lead combat troops then too. Bad luck and bad timing seem to have plagued this general all through his career. Missed his chance to lead troops in combat, hand to hand fighting with the bayonet.

On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 20:50:19 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 10:13:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 21:45:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 10:44:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 6/5/2022 5:04 AM, 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
>> >> (again?)
>> >>
>> >> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
>> >> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
>> >> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
>> >> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>> >>
>> >> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
>> >> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
>> >> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
>> >> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
>> >> career, in command of a combat unit.
>> >
>> >You disregarded that general's assessment of the AR-15 platform because
>> >you said he never led troops in combat.
>> >
>> >I'm disregarding your assessements for precisely the same reason:
>> >because you've never led troops in combat. You have disqualified yourself.
>> >
>> >Don't dance around, Tommy-like, and pretend you didn't say what you
>> >said. The internet remembers.
>> Yup, the Internet remembers.
>> Your General denounced the AR as a war weapon and I agreed. Actual
>> quote "Yup. A weapon of war..."
>>
>> I then went on to state that from the earliest days of the U.S. war
>> weapons have been produced and civilians have been allowed to own
>> them.
>
>Somewhere in the last 250 years of US war fighting, the weapons of war have changed a little bit. Up to about 1900, the Spanish American war, the same weapons used by soldiers and civilians was essentially the same. Pistols and rifles. And swords and knives. Military did have cannons and the Gatling gun. But about 1900 Hiram Maxim invented the first practical machine gun. And war and weapons changed from then on. The rifles used in WW1 were about the same as civilian rifles. But in WW2, the rifles and machine guns used by soldiers and civilians were drastically different. From WW2 onwards, things are not even remotely similar between military and civilian firearms. So saying civilians and soldiers in the Revolutionary War and Civil War used the same guns is not applicable to today. Or even the last 70 years.
>

On 6/5/2022 11:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 21:45:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/5/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Well, silly old Frankie exhibits his ignorance of the Military.
>>> (again?)
>>>
>>> My position of NCOIC of the Statistics Section has nothing to do with
>>> combat, but it did have something to do with me having contact with
>>> senior officers and knowing what they deem important.
>>> Which was the point of the discussion (Please try to pay attention)
>>>
>>> As for leading troops in combat? Well, the Air Force doesn't allows
>>> enlisted men to do that but so what. My comment that from his
>>> decorations he had never led troops in combat was a comment about the
>>> Army. Few Army officers of senior rank were not, at some time in their
>>> career, in command of a combat unit.
>>
>> You disregarded that general's assessment of the AR-15 platform because
>> you said he never led troops in combat.
>>
>> I'm disregarding your assessements for precisely the same reason:
>> because you've never led troops in combat. You have disqualified yourself.
>>
>> Don't dance around, Tommy-like, and pretend you didn't say what you
>> said. The internet remembers.
>
> Yup, the Internet remembers.
> Your General denounced the AR as a war weapon and I agreed. Actual
> quote "Yup. A weapon of war..."
>
> I then went on to state that from the earliest days of the U.S. war
> weapons have been produced and civilians have been allowed to own
> them.
>
> I also commented that a Senior Officer in the Military does not
> concern himself with details it is "his job" to manage the whole
> shebang. Which is true.
>
> And I commented that from his decorations it appeared that he had
> never led troops in combat. Which, I admit was a bit confusing and I
> should have used the word "commanded" as that is probably more
> understandable to a non military person.
>
> And it is true. If you had gone to Vietnam you could have seen them,
> Nearly all officers there were volunteers, not because they loved to
> fight but because "combat time" was something that a career officer
> wanted on his records.
>
> But feel free to continue to wiggle and squirm and flaunt your vast
> ignorance for all to see.

On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
> throughout U.S. history.

Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.

Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.

What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/6/2022 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!"
>> after all the
>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of
>> civilians
>> throughout U.S. history.
>
> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>
> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence -
> or, more accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the
> conversation.
>
> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds
> purchase guns that can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>

Again, who decides benefits? At what value?

One deranged 18 year old vs a few million lawful firearms
owners his age.

18 is old enough to contract, old enough to be charged with
a felony, old enough to enlist.

(I'm firmly convinced that 21 for alcohol is another error
but, for the moment, that's where we are. Pot, sure. Beer, no)

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

On 6/6/2022 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!"
>>> after all the
>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of
>>> civilians
>>> throughout U.S. history.
>>
>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>>
>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence -
>> or, more accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the
>> conversation.
>>
>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds
>> purchase guns that can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>>
>
> Again, who decides benefits? At what value?

It seems that for gun fetishists, the lives of school children, church
goers, synagogue worshipers or other ordinary citizens have no value. Or
at least, not as much value as the option to play with guns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/6/2022 1:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 6/6/2022 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!"
>>>> after all the
>>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of
>>>> civilians
>>>> throughout U.S. history.
>>>
>>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>>>
>>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence -
>>> or, more accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the
>>> conversation.
>>>
>>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds
>>> purchase guns that can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>>>
>>
>> Again, who decides benefits? At what value?
>
> It seems that for gun fetishists, the lives of school
> children, church goers, synagogue worshipers or other
> ordinary citizens have no value. Or at least, not as much
> value as the option to play with guns.
>
>

With fewer tragedies by outlier psychopaths than among big
pickup truck owners.

There are something like 400 million firearms here.

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

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 12:45:45 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 1:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 6/6/2022 12:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 6/6/2022 10:20 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!"
> >>>> after all the
> >>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of
> >>>> civilians
> >>>> throughout U.S. history.
> >>>
> >>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
> >>>
> >>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence -
> >>> or, more accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the
> >>> conversation.
> >>>
> >>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds
> >>> purchase guns that can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Again, who decides benefits? At what value?
> >
> > It seems that for gun fetishists, the lives of school
> > children, church goers, synagogue worshipers or other
> > ordinary citizens have no value. Or at least, not as much
> > value as the option to play with guns.
> >
> >
> With fewer tragedies by outlier psychopaths than among big
> pickup truck owners.
>
> There are something like 400 million firearms here.

I showed an Army enlisted man who made a very excellent point: The weapons and the ammunition that our crazy person who shot up that school had on him were worth $10,000 at least. I have put in my 10 cents worth that all of the illegals that are living around me have NEW shinny cars while mine is 14 years old and is really all I can afford to have. WHERE are these illegals including our shooter who was also an illegal, getting this free and easy money?

Why is it that Frank is willing to blame the guns and not the fact that most of these murders are going caused by illegals? Is it because he worships the ground that Biden walks on? That secretly Frank has always wanted to be a pedophile too?

We HAVE pictures of what turns out to be FBI agents egging the crowd on, on Jan 6th to enter the House of Congress and that they were NEVER charged with anything. And that there are NO charges they can place on those people other than trespassing but most of them are still in jail without bail? Frank is the penultimate Democrat. He will believe absolutely anything that the party leaders tell him to believe. I have a brother like that. He voted for Gavin Loathsome because he was a Democrat and then moved to Nevada to improve his living standard.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
>> throughout U.S. history.
>
>Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>
>Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
>accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
>
>What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
>can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?

"Benefit vs detriment"??

Frank you really have "gone right round the bend" as the old saying
has it.

Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
version? Or even a 1700's version?

Or for that matter be killed with....
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:52:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
> >> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
> >> throughout U.S. history.
> >
> >Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
> >
> >Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
> >accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
> >
> >What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
> >can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
> "Benefit vs detriment"??
>
> Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
> 2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
> version? Or even a 1700's version?
>
> Or for that matter be killed with....

I think it's more terrible to kill a school kid than, say, a rival gang member. I think it's
more terrible to kill people sitting in a church or synagogue than, say, a person who is
trying to shoot at you.

I think it's even more terrible to kill a dozen or more school kids, a dozen or more churchgoers,
a dozen or more innocents of any type. That's what rapid fire arms enable and promote.

That's the main detriment associated with the guns you love. What are the benefits, beyond
letting gun fetishists have fun with fantasies?

- Frank Krygowski

On 6/6/2022 8:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:52:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
>>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
>>>> throughout U.S. history.
>>>
>>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>>>
>>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
>>> accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
>>>
>>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
>>> can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>> "Benefit vs detriment"??
>>
>> Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
>> 2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
>> version? Or even a 1700's version?
>>
>> Or for that matter be killed with....
>
> I think it's more terrible to kill a school kid than, say, a rival gang member. I think it's
> more terrible to kill people sitting in a church or synagogue than, say, a person who is
> trying to shoot at you.
>
> I think it's even more terrible to kill a dozen or more school kids, a dozen or more churchgoers,
> a dozen or more innocents of any type. That's what rapid fire arms enable and promote.
>
> That's the main detriment associated with the guns you love. What are the benefits, beyond
> letting gun fetishists have fun with fantasies?
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Notice the lack of 'hunting' or 'home defense' in our
beloved 2d Amendment. Reason enough to avoid draconian
unconstitutional novelties IMHO.

A post-firearms-confiscation USA would be much more like
Mexico than Eden.

Disarming lawful citizens has follow-on effects too:
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/texas-woman-shoots-alleged-stalker-who-kicked-in-her-door/

and fundamentally changes the nation (people may vary in
their opinions on that but change, fundamental change,
nonetheless)

Disarming most (never all) of the decent honest USA firearms
owners will not solve any problem but will tilt the playing
field strongly toward gangs, random violence and tyranny.

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

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 18:45:25 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:52:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
>> >> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
>> >> throughout U.S. history.
>> >
>> >Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>> >
>> >Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
>> >accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
>> >
>> >What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
>> >can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>> "Benefit vs detriment"??
>>
>> Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
>> 2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
>> version? Or even a 1700's version?
>>
>> Or for that matter be killed with....
>
>I think it's more terrible to kill a school kid than, say, a rival gang member. I think it's
>more terrible to kill people sitting in a church or synagogue than, say, a person who is
>trying to shoot at you.
>
>I think it's even more terrible to kill a dozen or more school kids, a dozen or more churchgoers,
>a dozen or more innocents of any type. That's what rapid fire arms enable and promote.
>
>That's the main detriment associated with the guns you love. What are the benefits, beyond
>letting gun fetishists have fun with fantasies?
>
>- Frank Krygowski

You know Frank, I posted a somewhat abbreviated of my 70 year history
of association with guns as evidence that I know a bit about them and
challenged you to do the same. Which you have yet to do.
Do we assume that while I have some 70 years experience you have none?

And, your tirades about fast firing guns with big magazines, as I have
pointed out is "Old Hat" they have been around practically for ever..
The Glock 19 - semi automatic, big 19 round magazine, just like those
fearsome "assault rifles" that you shout about was first marketed in
1988. That is 34 years ago, so one would assume that you have been
shouting and screaming about the Glock for 30 years or more...... but
you haven't, have you.

And why not? Is it that you didn't know that there was such a
weapon?No matter that it is, I believe, the most used police sidearm
in the U.S.
How can this be.... this fearsome "shoots fast holds a lot of bullets"
gun that has been available on the open market for 30 years? And
Frankie didn't even know it existed.

So, what do we assume?That Frankie doesn't actually know anything at
all about guns and this terror he voices of the Demon designed AR is
based on seeing a photo of one?

Or is it Senile Dementia? I read that there is a correlation with
decreased levels of testosterone in elderly males and increased levels
of dementia. Is that your problem? You are old and crotchety and have
to complain about something. That in your old age you have to depend
on fiction rather than friction for your thrills?

Lets face facts Frankie, in this subject (and possibly others) you
don't know nothing. No, I make a mistake. You do know! That they
terrify you.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:07:26 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Notice the lack of 'hunting' or 'home defense' in our
> beloved 2d Amendment. Reason enough to avoid draconian
> unconstitutional novelties IMHO.

<sigh> Constitutional novelties like ignoring "well regulated militia"?
Novelties like restrictions on rapid fire weapons that did not exist when
the amendment was written? There were restrictions from day number one.
Freedom from all restrictions is a marketing ploy invented a couple decades
ago to sell guns.

> A post-firearms-confiscation USA would be much more like
> Mexico than Eden.

Well, that wasn't the experience in Australia. And as I often mention, Canada
seems to be doing fine - far better than the U.S. - with restrictions that some
here claim would be the end of the world.

If there were to be any mass confiscation of guns, it would happen far into the
future. The best we could hope for now would be to stop the sale of rapid fire
guns. Note that nobody here has given any real advantage to their use.

> Disarming lawful citizens has follow-on effects too:
> https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/texas-woman-shoots-alleged-stalker-who-kicked-in-her-door/

Please. It's been shown many times that a gun in a home is many times more likely
to kill a family member than an intruder.

> and fundamentally changes the nation (people may vary in
> their opinions on that but change, fundamental change,
> nonetheless)

This country could use some fundamental change. A person's patriotism has to
be outrageously extreme to think, against so much available data, that our collection of
laws and policies is the best of all possibilities.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 06 Jun 2022 21:07:14 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/6/2022 8:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:52:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
>>>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
>>>>> throughout U.S. history.
>>>>
>>>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
>>>> accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
>>>>
>>>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
>>>> can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
>>> "Benefit vs detriment"??
>>>
>>> Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
>>> 2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
>>> version? Or even a 1700's version?
>>>
>>> Or for that matter be killed with....
>>
>> I think it's more terrible to kill a school kid than, say, a rival gang member. I think it's
>> more terrible to kill people sitting in a church or synagogue than, say, a person who is
>> trying to shoot at you.
>>
>> I think it's even more terrible to kill a dozen or more school kids, a dozen or more churchgoers,
>> a dozen or more innocents of any type. That's what rapid fire arms enable and promote.
>>
>> That's the main detriment associated with the guns you love. What are the benefits, beyond
>> letting gun fetishists have fun with fantasies?
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
>Notice the lack of 'hunting' or 'home defense' in our
>beloved 2d Amendment. Reason enough to avoid draconian
>unconstitutional novelties IMHO.
>
>A post-firearms-confiscation USA would be much more like
>Mexico than Eden.
>
>Disarming lawful citizens has follow-on effects too:
>https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/texas-woman-shoots-alleged-stalker-who-kicked-in-her-door/
>
>and fundamentally changes the nation (people may vary in
>their opinions on that but change, fundamental change,
>nonetheless)
>
>Disarming most (never all) of the decent honest USA firearms
>owners will not solve any problem but will tilt the playing
>field strongly toward gangs, random violence and tyranny.

But what to do? I read that there are about 100 million gun owners
possessing some 400 million firearms and based on the AR prices I see
posted worth, perhaps, $602,521,338,600.
So? An Australian style Buy Back scheme?

Maybe simply seize the guns? Well, there are an estimated 128,450,000
families in the U.S. so logically there are that many, probably more,
homes to search.

Can you imagine any politician stand up in the front of the room and
announcing that "Starting tomorrow there will be police visiting you
in your home to identify and confiscate any firearms in you may own"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 7:07:26 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 8:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 6:52:46 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 11:20:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/6/2022 1:33 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> So why the great out cry today "War Weapon! War Weapon!" after all the
> >>>> most modern weapons available have been in the hands of civilians
> >>>> throughout U.S. history.
> >>>
> >>> Because of benefit vs. detriment considerations, John.
> >>>
> >>> Which is a concept that seems to terrify you into silence - or, more
> >>> accurately, into intense efforts to deflect the conversation.
> >>>
> >>> What are the benefits of letting hostile 18-year-olds purchase guns that
> >>> can kill a dozen school kids in a minute?
> >> "Benefit vs detriment"??
> >>
> >> Do you really think it is somehow more terrible to kill someone with a
> >> 2020 version of a war weapon then it is with a, oh say, an 1800
> >> version? Or even a 1700's version?
> >>
> >> Or for that matter be killed with....
> >
> > I think it's more terrible to kill a school kid than, say, a rival gang member. I think it's
> > more terrible to kill people sitting in a church or synagogue than, say, a person who is
> > trying to shoot at you.
> >
> > I think it's even more terrible to kill a dozen or more school kids, a dozen or more churchgoers,
> > a dozen or more innocents of any type. That's what rapid fire arms enable and promote.
> >
> > That's the main detriment associated with the guns you love. What are the benefits, beyond
> > letting gun fetishists have fun with fantasies?
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> Notice the lack of 'hunting' or 'home defense' in our
> beloved 2d Amendment. Reason enough to avoid draconian
> unconstitutional novelties IMHO.
>
> A post-firearms-confiscation USA would be much more like
> Mexico than Eden.
>
> Disarming lawful citizens has follow-on effects too:
> https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/texas-woman-shoots-alleged-stalker-who-kicked-in-her-door/
>
> and fundamentally changes the nation (people may vary in
> their opinions on that but change, fundamental change,
> nonetheless)
>
> Disarming most (never all) of the decent honest USA firearms
> owners will not solve any problem but will tilt the playing
> field strongly toward gangs, random violence and tyranny.

The fundamental problem is that you don't have any idea who the leaders of this asinine movement are. Like Flunky they operate anonymously in order to retain the ability to say that it was someone else and not them. Biden is plainly a sock puppet. So who is operating him? Until these people are made public and shown the sort of people they are they can continue. Question: AFTER Biden has been shown to have been taking bribes from the Chinese how could he not have been impeached by any honest party? After the entire management of the NIH and Fauci have been shown to have taken $30 Million in bribes from the vaccine manufacturers to maintain the false pandemic how can they remain in office? When you have a Representative saying that they will do absolutely anything to disarm the public, including destroying our entire form of government, how is it that he could remain in office?

Does anyone realize to what depths the Democrats will sink to retain power? That they are willing to destroy this entire country?

When they obtained the Presidency through election fraud I said so to what avail? Frank, Scharf, Russell and Flunky simply quoted the lying Democrat controlled "fact checkers" NOT because they had any interest in the truth, but because they wanted to oppose me come hell or high water. They would happily live in slavery than see me be right. Now they have gone though three years with their first Amendment rights suspended and they are so utterly stupid they haven't noticed that they are slaves. That they are nothing more than the working class supplying big houses and fancy benefits to the upper class just like in 18th century England. Exactly how stupid do you have to be not to have seen this? What the Democrats have threatened is to make a government with essentially a house of Parliament with the Royalty having the last say. With a Supreme Court designed to sign off on anything the Royalty say.

Well, the illegals came here to escape that. And the Blacks are now seeing that the slave traders themselves have managed to convince them that being slaves is for their own good. There is an entire generation of illegals that are willing to kill rather than have that here. And a black population becoming more and more aware that the slavers have been controlling them. The worm is turning but I am afraid that it will be too late when it does. And the only thing for it will be a civil war in which Russell and Flunky and Scharf and Frank will be nothing more than loud mouthed meat in the Grinder.. These four are not the Stuff of the Union Army they are little pansy's who are nothing more than mouths repeating what they are told to repeat. And for it they will be killed. They have decided to give their lives to retain the lifestyles of the rich and famous. And they don't even see that.