Military Terror Plot: Murder Case Uncovers Terror Plot By 'Militia' Within U.S. Military

meeproach:
We both know what books are, and also what are not books.

This is somewhat reassuring. Yes; I believe we do.

However, I also believe that a book used as a weapon, in the commission of an assault, is NOT an assault-weapon ... even if it has a wicked cool black plastic binding.

I think that calling a whole class of books--based upon the presumtive assertion that they are preferred (over paperbacks, for instance) by criminally violent asshats for committing assault--assault-weapons in the interest of public safety, reveals the moral and intellectual disingenuousity of the retards applying the label.

And I am of the impression that in the principle of the matter you would enthusiastically agree with me ... unless we are applying the principle to guns.

Am I correct?

meeproach:
I happen to disagree with you, I think some shelves are specifically designed to hold books, both in dimensions and in strength.

I would take great pleasure in recognizing your profound mental retardation if you would assert that a bookshelf--specifically designed to hold books, both in dimensions and in strength--is not primarily a shelf, or fails to be a shelf of any description, if it is not holding books.

That would be awesome.

It would be even more awesome than if you were to assert that using a bookshelf--specifically designed to hold books, both in dimensions and in strength--to hold magazines, a DVD collection, or (perish the thought) a gun collection, is an illegitimate use of a bookshelf ... so much so, society is justified in regarding those who do so as criminals without any regard to due process.

Although not so awesome as the former, I would still take great pleasure in recognizing your profound mental retardation if you would assert the latter.

Seriously.

meeproach:
On the other hand, I'm genuinely curious about your annoyance with the description of the weapons.

It derives from the same reasons I become annoyed with Christians who describe a pagan religions as mere mythology.

Such descriptions speak to a morally and intellectually disingenuous aggenda.

Clearly stated; such discriptions are disinformation.

meeproach:
I thought an "assault rifle" is a type of rifle built to be used for an assault of some kind, as opposed to being built for hunting or shooting targets like an Olympic air rifle or what ever other purpose rifles might have, ...

An assualt-rifle is unabiguously a firearm capable of fully automatic or burst fire. They are primarily reserved for the exclusive use of the military, and their purpose is to lay down a barrage of suppressive fire--i.e., to prevent the other guys from shooting at you and your friends while you try to take care of business.

And you probably thought their purpose was to mow down a lot of people. Yes?

meeproach:
and the adjective semiautomatic was used to to distinguish it from bolt action rifles such as the sniper rifles I've seen - which are also intended for assaulting someone or thing.

Or hunting. Or target shooting.

Semi-automatic simply refers to a firearm that fires once with each pull of the trigger, while automatically ejecting the spent round, and chambering the next round.

The term distinguishes the firearm from those with manual actions; like the bolt-action you mentioned, as well as break-actions, lever-actions, and pump-actions.

It also distinguishes the firearm from those capable of fully automatic fire (i.e., continuous fire as long as you have the trigger pulled), and/or burst fire weapons (firing 3 or 4 rounds with each trigger pull).

And FYI, there is no difference in design (in dimensions or strength) between bolt-action sniper rifles and bolt-action hunting rifles. Which is why anti-rights meep-bags like those at Huff-Post call such hunting rifles "sniper rifles" at every possible opportunity.

meeproach:
I'm not a connoisseur of guns so I accept there may be no such thing as an assault pistol or a semiautomatic assault pistol, but are the semantic nuances you seem to be upset really that offensive to gun lovers or are you just having a bad day?

It's not nuances; the issue isn't like the preferences that black folks might have over being referred to as "colored" or "African-American." And it's not about me having a bad day either. The issue is more related to considering someone with HIV positive status as deserving their affliction because AIDS is a junky-meepgot disease. The issue is more related to the claims that Barak Obama is inelligible to be President because he's a muslim. It's related to notion that all those who vote for Democrats are Socialists.

The issue I have with it is that the conflation of terms, by proffessional journalist practicing the due dilligence of their craft, speaks to a morally and intellectually disingenuous aggenda--it is disinformation.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/linkswarm/links/~3/gYwR5Lcy46k/

kourtney kardashian DNS Changer ernest borgnine adrian peterson ESPYs 2012 venus williams Freeh Report