Yes, the nutters give us a bad name. They say all kinds of stupid, and often wrong **** that needs corrected.
That statement itself is incorrect. You can try to put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. Want to resume arguements on how Sten’s are designed?
He is still trying to say a Sten has an Auto Sear, and contradict diagrams, and people that built them and know how a blow back open bolt machine gun operates, and the design precludes the necessity of an Auto Sear as unnecessary.
Ok, I will give you an out here, Just admit you are not a gunsmith, and we will forgive and forget and chalk it up to inexperience and know you will learn in the future, and we can be friends ok ?
Toggle menu 6784259585 LoginorSign Up Home Parts and Kits Web Store British Firearm Parts and Accessories STEN STEN Parts STEN Bolt Parts STEN Bolt, Extractor Pin STEN Bolt, Extractor
Everything that has been stated by yourself has been incorrect. The simple fact that such is not recognized by yourself, nor accepted, is the fault of yourself and only of yourself, rather than anyone else.
If you recall we ended up on that topic when discussing what regulates the ROF in autos where we were informed, the ROF was controlled by an auto sear. People can toss out assertions based on ignorance, but then defending those assertions as correct often compounds, as in this case when a full auto (a STEN) has no sear, but it’s ROF can be adjusted. So obviously, at least obvious to most, a full auto sear does not control the ROF. And, that discussion was engaged because of another claim that was based in ignorance as well. It’s call digging you self in a hole, then trying to cover the hole not by filling it in, but digging deeper. The original discussion might be lost to many, but what remains in minds is the dishonest dance. Now, virtually everything he says is greeted by sceptism of the person, rather than the object of discussion where a simple acknowlegement of a lack of knowlege might have accepted, quickly forgotten and saved a modicum of credibility. Admitting a lack of knowlege is far easier to accept than someone trying to convince someone black is white as if continually making that assertion will make someone believe it. Classic militant defense of ignorance.
Well we remember the lesson of the mass of the bolt controlling rate of fire, a heavier bolt gives a slower rate of fire, a lighter bolt a faster rate of fire due to physics rules. A heavier bolt takes longer to move, longer dwell time, slower rate of fire.
Except THATS NOT HOW AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE WORKS. A denial of writ is a denial of writ ONLY. It is not acceptance of the rule by the court
yeah we got it-you believe that you should trade away gun rights for some in order to stave off the gun banners trying to ban the stuff you want to own. Its like the old Alaskan story about a family on a sled being pursued by wolves, throwing grand ma off the sled so the wolves would kill her and not chase the others. same thinking
Do you think there could be more in play than just "not interested" in a case regarding one of the rights in the BOR?
you don't have any valid arguments supporting those bans. All yo do is constantly regurgitate the fact that the USSC has not done its job YET what happens to all your anti gun arguments if the USSC strikes down those clearly unconstitutional (based on Heller and McDonald-as well as the words of the second amendment and the intent of the founders) bans?