"200 Shells"
The counterargument they like to make is that firearms are so obviously dangerous that you don't need to understand them to know that we need fewer of them and with more regulations. Still, the refusal to learn even the most basic facts about them before calling for regulations is a commitment to ignorance that is sometimes stunning to behold.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Well, he's right. That would be a very heavy and unwieldy magazine. Belt-fed is the way to go at that point.
Yes, and no, Tom. The belts are pretty unwieldy, too, when I'm working alone.
My favored response to even the outlandish...questions...like Biden's Who, in God's name, needs a magazine which can hold 200 shells? is "None of your business. You don't get to tell me what my needs are."
I won't let the quibble business even get started. I won't wrestle the fools in the mud; it just gets me dirty in a useless enterprise, and the fools far too much prurient pleasure out of it for their own good.
Eric Hines
Well, I almost added "and an assistant gunner," but then the M249 carries the belt in a plastic drum or cloth pouch that is easier to work with than loose belts, and 5.56 belts are lighter than 7.62. It's wieldy enough for the individual soldier. So I think it depends on what you're carrying.
More importantly, yeah, they just don't know what they're talking about. I don't even get into these conversations. There's no chance of changing someone's mind w/o getting into a long discussion, and you probably won't even then, so unless I have the time I don't even engage at all.
I understand that he's just fundraising and there's not really any serious threat of them actually achieving what he proposes. It just bothers me that their proposals don't even make sense of the technology they're trying to engage.
Nah, this is just where we point and laugh.
It is a waste of their time to learn enough to get it right. The people who know aren't going to change their minds, whether it's those who oppose his gun grabbing or those who support it. Biden's base mostly doesn't know, and those who do don't care if he gets the facts right because they agree with his sentiment. The second key target is low-info voters who don't know but can be scared by crazy phrases like "200 shell magazines," especially when said with a modicum of outrage in the voice.
Plainly, they don't care to know and they have better things to do than learn.
For us, this is mostly a comedy routine. The only times it becomes useful is in talking to undecideds who don't know guns but will listen and ask questions or Biden voters who actually do know guns because that allows us to point out how absurd their arguments are. I don't run into either situation very often, so it's all just comedy to me.
Coming out of my hippie days I was sure guns were dangerous and should be heavily regulated. But I live in NH and worked with plenty of hunters, some of whom liked to talk about guns endlessly. There are lots of men who just like to talk about gear of any kind. I knew nothing, but I had picked up scraps of info. In the 80s I read an op-ed by a state legislator in favor of gun regulation and realised that he knew even less about guns than I did. It was the beginning of my turnaround on the issue, though it took until the 90s.
My guess would be "a battleship does," but that still makes it hard to move and load said shells.
Now, 200 rounds of .22 isn't that heavy, but it would be very awkward in a single mag.
LittleRed1
My guess would be "a battleship does..."
In total a battleship would carry more than 200 shells, but not per gun. Even a battleship only carried around 100-120 shells per gun.
And they were "shells," which was the technical point that was getting at me even more than the number of them.
Post a Comment