"Lena B Katz" > wrote in message
...


>> I also asked your age. It's pertinent to the discussion. How old are you?
>
> You think I'm just gonna let you get away with asserting that "it's
> pertinent to the discussion?" nah... you've got to show that in at least
> a little more detail... say, any detail at all.

It would help me with some informal research I've been doing about an entire
generation which fell off the educational radar screen. So, as a favor to
me, please provide your age.




>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> There is no military definition. A gun is a gun. There are DEFECTIVE
>> definitions, most of which are kept in circulation by the press, and by
>> ill-informed individuals like you.
>
> ... have you read the post on what an "assault rifle" means? do so, if
> you please.

Yes. I've read it. It does not matter. Take away the 10 or 20 or 30 round
magazines and put in just 3 or 4 rounds, and suddenly, it's just like a
hunting rifle.