On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Doug Kanter wrote:

> "Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> ...googling (my knowledge of news in general is rather limited. no TV, no
>> Radio.) I see.
> By the way, no TV and no radio are not excuses for being ill-informed. You
> have a computer, so you have access to enormous amounts of news.

Yeah. What I _don't_ have access to is enormous amounts of time.

>>>
>>> Lousy definition. A well placed round from a .45 caliber pistol or a
>>> .357 magnum pistol will take out a car also. Those could hardly be
>>> classified as assault rifles. Come back and talk when you actually KNOW
>>> what an assault rifle is.
>>
>> I think when I wrote that, I was thinking more along the lines of armored
>> cars and the rifles cited in another post as being "hard to conceal" and
>> coming with explosive bullets.
>
> Don't blame it on "another post". ***YOU*** tossed those ridiculous ideas
> into this discussion. Not someone else. YOU.

Yeah, I did. I stated that what I was talking about was a "working
definition", not a real, military definition.

Lena

p.s. don't be so hostile. you might even learn something.