"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:92otcj569ro8sfffqru895itsk72ig6vbs@4ax.com...
> On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie Glock"@localhost.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
>>I suggest you do likewise.
>
> Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much?

Fantasize? Na. A student of history and current events? Absolutely.

> If you can't win at the ballot
> box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?

Well, it didn't stop the Democrats.. but then Democrats are idiots.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:valdjt$339at$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR
>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>> standards
>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>>>>>>>> higher QA
>>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So? The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>>
>>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp! it wasn't an M16, but an
>>>>> M16A2!"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!"
>>>>>>> /s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or not?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -hh
>>>>
>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>
>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who
>>> fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.
>>
>> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
>> people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
>> discount and still making a fortune?
>
> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.

You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
THOUSANDS. Further federal law sort of prohibits most people from buying
directly from the manufacturer, thus requiring the inclusion of middle men
who mark up the price so they can get paid.

And yet, people can buy products from those same contractors... so IP
restrictions wouldn't impact costs.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vald68$339at$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/27/24 1:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vake0k$2vdj8$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/26/24 7:38 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>> In news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me, -hh
>>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>>> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR
>>>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>
>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>> standards
>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>> channel....
>>>>
>>>> Not in the U.S.
>>>
>>> With ~99% parts commonality, why wouldn't both be coming off of the same
>>> production line?
>>
>> Well, most of the military stuff is probably what didn't pass quality
>> control standards for the civilian market.
>>
>> After all the government has no issues buying a 5 MOA rifle..
>
> I said 0.5 MOA, not 5 MOA.

I'm sure YOU did.. the government however, did not.

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66ce5096$1$2759$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <val1es$32l5f$5@dont-email.me>,
> me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
>>
>> "Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
>> news:vadlcv$1i6rk$3@dont-email.me...
>> > Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
>> > news:66ca3cca$0$1895493$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>> >
>> >> In article <vacfp3$1c72d$2@dont-email.me>,
>> >> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>> >>>
>> >>> On 8/23/24 12:50 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> >>> > In article <vaab48$v93b$3@dont-email.me>, OFeem1987@teleworm.us
>> >>> > says...
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Scout wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>> >>> news:p2vfcjp8mvr082plgg7es4n8c0e1tp0ake@4ax.com...
>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:30:32 -0700, "max headroom"
>> >>> >>>> <maximusheadroom@gmx.com>
>> >>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> "Foolishly assumed" being the operative phrase.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Excellent.. then there is no need to ban, restrict, regulate or
>> >>> >>> control AR15's as being 'weapons of war'.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> They are generally nothing more than a fancy .22 semiauto.
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> So how many rounds of that would you be okay receiving in your
>> >>> >> belly?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Was that a threat? Just because a gun exists doesn't mean it's
>> >>> > going to shoot anyone.
>> >>>
>> >>> Nah, its not a threat: its simply humiliating 'Scout' for his
>> >>> attempt to try to downplay the caliber.
>> >>
>> >> It was a threat.
>> >>>
>> >>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>> >>> an interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>> >>> for them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>> >>> market...
>> >>
>> >> It's just a gun.
>> >>>
>> >>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly higher
>> >>> QA and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>> >>
>> >> It's still just a gun.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just like
>> >>> how automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>> >>> too.
>> >>
>> >> Guns don't kill people.
>> >>
>> >
>> > But people kill people with guns multiple times every day.
>>
>> But people kill people with cars multiple times every day.
>>
>> Shall we treat cars like you want to treat guns?
>>
>>
>
> We should ban alcohol too. It kills way more people than guns do.

And doctors... I mean do you know how many people die under the care of a
doctor?

"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
in message
news:839scj99rrma1c2q674u5khr43qr75d3bj@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksucking.dwarf.com...
> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>
>>> That guns are more deadly and kill more people faster and from a
>>> longer distance away than those other methods. If that were not true,
>>> there would be no guns.
>>
>>And there's no 2A protection of those other methods - they get regulated.
>>Meanwhile a court just ruled protecting ownership of a machine gun.
>
> As it should, Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter.

Yep, and Baxter seems to have a weird concept that "arms" only means "guns".

In article <vam44e$3b467$1@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
> in
> news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> ing.dwarf.com:
>
> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >
> >>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote
> >>in
> >>
> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> >>ing.dwarf.com:
> >>
> >>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >>>
> >>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
> that
> >>>>it is a tool for killing
> >>>
> >>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
> The
> >>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
> >>
> >>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
> >>groomer KKKlaun?
> >
> > Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns decide
> > things.
> >
> > That's how retarded he is.
> >
>
> Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".

They don't. The person holding it does.

In article <vamueg$3el01$1@dont-email.me>,
recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>
> On 8/28/24 4:46 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 18:18:41 -0600, Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <valpim$339at$6@dont-email.me>,
> >> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> >>>
> >>> On 8/27/24 6:36 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>> In article <val2n4$32i8g$1@dont-email.me>,
> >>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
> > <snip>
> >>>>> About the only way that a CSM would know of a deployment order before
> >>>>> the Commander is if they're working in the communications unit and
> >>>>> intercept the orders (which IIRC used to come in via secure teletype)
> >>>>> while it is being staffed up to the Commander's attention. But even
> >>>>> this is not the CSM being notified by HQ: the orders are for the
> >>>>> Commander, so it is that NCO while working for the Commander happening
> >>>>> to be in the communication chain from HQ to Commander and seeing the
> >>>>> orders while en route (which may or may not be a security breach).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> He is still a disgrace to veterans.
> >>>
> >>> Nowhere near a disgrace as an USENET troll who's such a luzer that they
> >>> can't even bring themselves to publicly admit that they're grossly wrong
> >>> on where NCOs are in the Command Structure.
> >>>
> >> No, he's worse than that. Vets hate him.
> >
> > "More than 1,000 veterans sign letter supporting Walz"
> > <https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/2024-election/veterans-letter-walz/>
>
> Well, to be pedantically fair, Skeeter didn't specify what side these
> Vets are on, as there's a good number of Russian Vatniks out there being
> paid to troll on the internet to support Trump.
>
>
> -hh

Foil hat time for you.

In article <vand73$3gq1h$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
> in
> news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> ing.dwarf.com:
>
> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >
> >>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote
> >>in
> >>
> news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> >>ing.dwarf.com:
> >>
> >>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >>>
> >>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> >>wrote
> >>>>in
> >>>>
> >>
> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> >>>>ing.dwarf.com:
> >>>>
> >>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
> >>that
> >>>>>>it is a tool for killing
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
> >>The
> >>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
> >>>>
> >>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
> >>>>groomer KKKlaun?
> >>>
> >>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
> decide
> >>> things.
> >>>
> >>> That's how retarded he is.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
> >
> > Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
> > kill."
> >
> > Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
> > be struggling with for some reason.
> >
> >
>
> Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus --
> eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
> purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.

So? That can't do anything without a human making a decision.

Baxter wrote:

>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-dis
>> info-430276
>
>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump administration --

It was during the election campaign.

>and tRump's White House was pushing that letter.

No, Trump's White House was NOT pushing that letter.

On 8/26/24 9:34 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR
>>>>>> is an
>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays for
>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>
>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>
>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>> standards gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market
>> distribution channel.
>
> BS.. I don't know a civilian that would accept 5 MOA out of the box as
> the military does.

Problem is that you don't know the relevant testing conditions &
requirements thereof to know how much BS you're spewing.

For his brag group, Bubba dopes the wind, fires warmers & practice
rounds, stops if its raining, tosses the "bad" groups because 'he pulled
that shot' (or 'wind came up'): everything that a steady production
environment is not, for statistics to have most every gun pass, the true
dispersion has to be 3+ standard deviations smaller than that number.

> Oh, sure, civilians will buy them... for a fraction of what the military
> paid for them, and the turn around and dump in a bunch of parts to make
> it better.. or they just want a plinker where accuracy and such aren't
> really an issue.
>
> Ever compare the prices the military buys stuff for vs what it sells for
> as military surplus?
> Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
> equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.

One buyer ordering a few hundred thousand is the same market demand as a
few hundred thousand buyers ordering one.

-hh

On 8/28/24 10:56 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:valdjt$339at$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value
>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>>> standards
>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>>> channel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>>>>>>>>> higher QA
>>>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay
>>>>>>>> too much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp!  it wasn't an M16, but an
>>>>>> M16A2!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy
>>>>>>>> .22!" /s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or
>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>
>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>
>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those
>>>> who fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually
>>>> worth.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of
>>> what people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it
>>> at a 25% discount and still making a fortune?
>>
>> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.
>
> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
> THOUSANDS.

But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)

> Further federal law sort of prohibits most people from buying
> directly from the manufacturer, thus requiring the inclusion of middle
> men who mark up the price so they can get paid.

Oh, so you're claiming that the manufacturers are just barely squeaking
by with no margins, but the middlemen are making a 100% profit?

Problem that you have there is that the middlemen don't have any IP to
be a price moat for them to be able to charge high margins.

> And yet, people can buy products from those same contractors... so IP
> restrictions wouldn't impact costs.

IP is what restricts competition from other manufacturers to drive down
prices, spiff.

-hh

On 8/28/24 10:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
> news:vald68$339at$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 8/27/24 1:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vake0k$2vdj8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 8/26/24 7:38 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>>> In news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me, -hh
>>>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>>>> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value
>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>>> standards
>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>>> channel....
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> With ~99% parts commonality, why wouldn't both be coming off of the
>>>> same production line?
>>>
>>> Well, most of the military stuff is probably what didn't pass quality
>>> control standards for the civilian market.
>>>
>>> After all the government has no issues buying a 5 MOA rifle..
>>
>> I said 0.5 MOA, not 5 MOA.
>
> I'm sure YOU did.. the government however, did not.

Done with different sample sizes and testing conditions that your range
buddies who claim 1-2 MOA in reality always play fast & loose with, with
extensive "mulligans" to not admit that their $1200 gun has got only a
mediocre barrel.

Plus statistically, the contractor will pass that test consistently,
time & time & time again, which requires a substantially lower true
dispersion average than whatever the test limit is: figure 3+ standard
deviations...or more, when its an AOZ requirement in the contract.

-hh

Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com> wrote
in
news:i7fucj9tn63vfdev6tkrf9etc6drs7no5h@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
ing.dwarf.com:

> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
wrote
>>in
>>
news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>
>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>
>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
>>wrote
>>>>in
>>>>
>>
news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>
>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergent�ter.@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote
>>>>>>in
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>>>>that
>>>>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi
Baxter.
>>>>The
>>>>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>>>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>>>>>
>>>>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
>>decide
>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how retarded he is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
>>>
>>> Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
>>> kill."
>>>
>>> Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
>>> be struggling with for some reason.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus
--
>>eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
>>purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.
>
> Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter claims guns have only one
> purpose - to kill.
>
But wait! They slice! They dice! They peel potatoes! They catch fish!

Go ahead, idiot admitted pedophie groomer weird gun-pimp KKKlaun, tell us
what other non-dirived purpose a gun has (target practice is "dirived" -
it is done in support of the designed purpose.)

Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
news:66cf42a2$0$3068691$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:

> In article <92otcj569ro8sfffqru895itsk72ig6vbs@4ax.com>,
> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie
>> Glock"@localhost.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
>> >I suggest you do likewise.
>>
>> Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much? If you can't win at the
>> ballot box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?
>
> Because we have guns and you don't.
>

heh, heh, you just keep thinking that.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:6vuucj5gbqokvugaejf0f2ih29upk14j5i@4ax.com:

> Baxter wrote:
>
>>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-d
>>> is info-430276
>>
>>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump
>>administration --
>
> It was during the election campaign.

Yeah, while tRump was incumbent pResident

>
>>and tRump's White House was pushing that letter.
>
> No, Trump's White House was NOT pushing that letter.
>
You got your head up your ass.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:34:36 -0500, "Scout"
<me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

>Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
>equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.

So ... Colt sent our guys into combat zones with faulty rifles in order to
increase their profits?

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump

On 8/28/24 10:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:34:36 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
>> equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.
>
> So ... Colt sent our guys into combat zones with faulty rifles in order to
> increase their profits?

The AR-15s & first generation M16s that went to Vietnam were very much
"commercial spec" guns as they lacked a MILSPEC chrome plated barrel,
and that lack of chrome plating was integral to their early reliability
problems in Vietnam: both this and the calcium carbonate chemistry in
the IMR stick powder were needed to make the basic system design robust
& reliable. FA helped too, but that's potentially more of a placebo (I
can't recall ever seeing actual reliability numbers on it specifically).

This is an example showing where MILSPEC has additional manufacturing
steps (& QA checks thereof) which invariably make the MILSPEC version of
a product more expensive to produce than the commercial version.

-hh

[Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:

>> Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter claims guns have only one
>> purpose - to kill.
>>
>But wait! They slice! They dice! They peel potatoes! They catch fish!

Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter continues his display of
ignorance and-- to prove his idiocy-- demands we accept this
definition of target shooting as equaling "killing."

>Go ahead, idiot admitted pedophie groomer weird gun-pimp KKKlaun, tell us
>what other non-dirived purpose a gun has (target practice is "dirived" -
>it is done in support of the designed purpose.)

Shooting at targets is not killing, Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer
Baxter.

-hh wrote:

> Scout wrote:
>>
>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>> THOUSANDS.
>
> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)

Check-out the disingenuous idiot evading the point that the
individuals don't get the "volume discount".

Snits, like -highhorse, *never* concede a point.

>> Further federal law sort of prohibits most people from buying
>> directly from the manufacturer, thus requiring the inclusion of middle
>> men who mark up the price so they can get paid.
>
>Oh, so you're claiming that the manufacturers are just barely squeaking
>by with no margins, but the middlemen are making a 100% profit?
>
>Problem that you have there is that the middlemen don't have any IP to
>be a price moat for them to be able to charge high margins.

The middlemen, distributors and retailers, are often more far
profitable than the manufacturers, despite no "IP". To deny this is
idiocy.

-highhorse reponse to be deleted, unread.

Baxter wrote:

>>>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-dis info-430276
>>>
>>>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump
>>>administration --
>>
>> It was during the election campaign.
>
> Yeah, while tRump was incumbent pResident

So the fsck what? It was leftist misinformation, designed to shield
the Democrat. Sheesh!

In article <vaongv$3qm00$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> news:66cf42a2$0$3068691$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
> > In article <92otcj569ro8sfffqru895itsk72ig6vbs@4ax.com>,
> > governor.swill@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie
> >> Glock"@localhost.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
> >> >I suggest you do likewise.
> >>
> >> Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much? If you can't win at the
> >> ballot box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?
> >
> > Because we have guns and you don't.
> >
>
> heh, heh, you just keep thinking that.

It's true. Bring it bitch.

In article <vaonki$3qm00$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
says...
>
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:6vuucj5gbqokvugaejf0f2ih29upk14j5i@4ax.com:
>
> > Baxter wrote:
> >
> >>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-d
> >>> is info-430276
> >>
> >>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump
> >>administration --
> >
> > It was during the election campaign.
>
> Yeah, while tRump was incumbent pResident
>
> >
> >>and tRump's White House was pushing that letter.
> >
> > No, Trump's White House was NOT pushing that letter.
> >
> You got your head up your ass.

This is the only argument a loony liberal has.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:ujp0djdvutnil8i7poekse88amnfre6nbn@4ax.com:

> Baxter wrote:
>
>>>>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian
>>>>> -dis info-430276
>>>>
>>>>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump
>>>>administration --
>>>
>>> It was during the election campaign.
>>
>> Yeah, while tRump was incumbent pResident
>
> So the fsck what? It was leftist misinformation, designed to shield
> the Democrat. Sheesh!
>
============
Trump accuses White House of suppressing Hunter Biden laptop story � but
while he was president

Donald Trump accused the White House of pressuring Meta to suppress posts
about Hunter Biden�s laptop while he was serving as president.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social, falsely claimed, �Zuckerberg admits
that the White House pushed to SUPPRESSHUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY (& much
more!).�

�IN OTHER WORDS, THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WAS RIGGED,� the former
president continued.

Trump appears to be referring to a letter sent by Mark Zuckerberg, Meta
CEO, to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Monday.
Zuckerberg admitted in the letter that, in 2021, Joe Biden�s
administration �pressured� Meta to censor certain COVID-19 content.

He also said that Meta �temporarily demoted� a New York Post story about
Hunter Biden�s laptop in 2020 �when Trump was president � after the FBI
warned the story could be part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-accuses-white-house-suppressing-
223412473.html

=============

Gawd!! You're even stupider than tRump!.

Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
news:66d08686$0$2873014$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:

> In article <vaonki$3qm00$3@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> says...
>>
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in
>> news:6vuucj5gbqokvugaejf0f2ih29upk14j5i@4ax.com:
>>
>> > Baxter wrote:
>> >
>> >>> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russia
>> >>> n-d is info-430276
>> >>
>> >>Notice the date of the article - it was during the tRump
>> >>administration --
>> >
>> > It was during the election campaign.
>>
>> Yeah, while tRump was incumbent pResident
>>
>> >
>> >>and tRump's White House was pushing that letter.
>> >
>> > No, Trump's White House was NOT pushing that letter.
>> >
>> You got your head up your ass.
>
> This is the only argument a loony liberal has.
>

tRump says otherwise. Are you calling tRump a liar?!!

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-accuses-white-house-suppressing-
223412473.html

The easiest way to delete you not read is by a 'mark read' filter.

SCOTUS in action
<https://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2024/08/11>

--
"Of all the things that I hated about my childhood, nothing
compared to the revolving door of father figures." -- JD Vance

#NEVERtrump