Uh...NOT. You're talking the difference between 40+" overall to about 35". HARDLY what one would call concealable.
I see we've been reading the VPC propaganda. Considering these are SEMI-automatic weapons, not FULL-automatic, your claim, besides being pure bullshit, is moot.
The mount is useless without the bayonet - besides, a bayonet is simply a blade. I'll give you this one, but only in the most extreme semantical sense.
WRONG. 100% WRONG. The flash suprressor doesnt hide the muzzle flash from anyone but the USER. Perhaps if you actually read FACTS instead of VPC garbage you'd realize that.
Not really since grenades are considered DD's and not easily available. Add in the fact that one could have a grenade launcher and not have any of the other items and the weapon was quite legal.
Not really. There is EMOTION behind them which people like yourself (read uninformed) attempt to back up with flawed statements which sound like logic.
Not hardly. No intelligent adult would be afraid of an inanimate object.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

It still makes it easier to conceal...besides, they are usually shorter than 40" to begin with, and most stocks I've seen are longer than 5".

Actually I was talking from experience. A friend of mine growing up had a little .22 semiauto that had a pistol grip. We used to the pistol grip to "spray fire" on paper targets we set up. The pistol grip makes it much easier. We tried doing it without the pistol grip...it was a real bitch to keep stable.

Yeah, it would make more sense to outlaw bayonets, but as you said a bayonet is simply a blade so it would be impossible to ban them, so the banning the mounts would be the next logical step.

...Seriously? Have you ever seen a flash suppressor? I thought you were supposed to be the gun enthusiast here.

Well anyway:
Emphasis my own. There are different types of flash suppressors, most do hide the flash from other individuals as well.

True, but there is still a functional reason for why this would be a restricted feature.

What emotion would that be? Is it a different emotion than the emotional drive to protect our precious guns that other side uses?

The only arguement against gun control is that it is 1) argueably unconstitutional 2) We need our guns to overthrow an oppressive government.

However, 1: Many constitutional scholars, and I mean people with PhDs in constitutional law would say that it is constitutional. I know, I know, they're foolish. and 2: History has shown us that if you need guns to overthrow a government, you'll be able to get them (read IRA was able to get plenty of firearms even while living under some of the tightest gun control laws in the world.)

An intelligent person would be afraid of what people do with those inanimate objects. Like I said before, there are many very intelligent people, who know more about the constitution and constitutional law then everyone that's posted on this thread combined, who have outlined reasons for gun control.

You have a right to disagree with them, of course, but calling them fools simply because they disagree with you makes you appear more arrogant and foolish than anything.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

To be absolutely honest, I am much more afrraid of the insidious takeover by Jack-booted stormtroopers (Usual in blue) Commonly referred to a police officers who are already out of control in this country, than I am of Bush and his boys. If things went from a push to a shove, I think the military would step in to keep Bush from becoming king.

Typically a rifle is between 35 and 40" long. As far as the stock on a military-pattern semi-automatic, you may wish to take another look. The collapsible or folding portion is typically not terribly long. Additionally, while it may reduce the overall length by even as much as a foot, you're still dealing with a 2' long ~8lb weapon - not exactly the kind of thing one is going to stick in his front pocket.

Regardless, we would STILL only be talking about a medium power semi automatic rifle. The folding stock is cosmetic - nothing more. Has no effect on the power of the rifle.
I call bullshit, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, a pistol grip on a SEMI-automatic is for looks. On a .22 its not just for looks, but stupid. Third of all, you dont "spray fire" anything - that term was invented by the VPC to sound menacing. Fourth, I seriously doubt you had difficulties keeping a .22 SEMI-automatic stable. Not exactly a high powered caliber.
Ah again - how does this affect the lethality of the firearm? It doesnt - and you know it.
Yes i have, and they are designed to reduce the muzzle flash to the USER - not to anyone else. I assure you, the flash is QUITE visible to the rest of the world.
Name ONE. Go ahead.
Got one? Especially since it is only restricted if it is there in tandem with one of the OTHER features.
Very different. For example, your emotional bias against firearms is based upon an irrational fear of inanimate object. My logical bias towards them is based upon the fact that the object is not in and of itself a problem and you dont blame the law abiding for the actions of the lawless.
Not arguably - definitely.
Among other reasons. Those may be the only arguments YOU can see, but you've been presented with many many others. Just because you cant understand them, or do not consider them valid, doesnt mean they arent there.

I defy you to present a single FACT based argument in FAVOR of gun control.
Name one. I can name a large number, including the man who literally wrote the book on Constitutional Law, who agree with me.
No - they're imaginary.
So why make it harder on the people? After all, the government answers to US not the other way around. Sorry you dont like it - thats how it is.
An intelligent person would be aware of the risks involved with misuse of an inanimate object and would recongize that the risks of misuse do not outweigh the benefits of proper use. He would also realize that making something illegal would never prevent the criminal from obtaining it and only limits the law abiding - i.e., those about whom you dont have to worry. He would further realize the risk is not in the object, but in the person using it.

Only an ignorant or stupid person would think the object is to blame and banning it would make the problem go away.
NAME ONE.
Not really. History, facts, law and logic are on my side. They have nothing but emotion and conjecture. Only a fool or a liar will continue to attempt to argue a point in which he knows there is no rational basis.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Really ? Those jack booted thug cops are out of control in this country are they ? Is that why people speed almost everywhere now ? Is that why crime is so common now ?

Gosh, we just gotta stop bush from becoming king

king bush

Folding stocks were created to make the guns easier to store/conceal/ and trasnport. There are other ways of hiding a gun than just stiking it your pocket, but you know that. Point being: Folding stocks aren't just cosmetic. They weren't invented because some gun maker thought they would look badass. There is a function behind them.

It may have been a .257 I don't remember. It's been a long time. Anyway, it was a low power, cheap ammo gun. Anyway, we had a ten bullet clip for it which we would see how fast we could empty into a paper target. The jerking of your hand from trying to pull the trigger extremely fast makes the barrel bounce more than the recoil itself, but either way the pistol grip made stablization at a high rate of fire much, much easier.

And the term "spray fire" was around long before the VPC, sorry.

Yep, bayonets are just cosmetic. That's why they're invented to look cool. And, if you are right, bayonets are not lethal, than they are not weapons and not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

That also reduce the visiblity to the rest of the world. Does it make completely disappear? No, but it makes it harder to see and reduces the number of angles from which it can be seen.

A grenade launcher has no legimate use in the civilian world. But that's another arguement. Besides, it definitely increases the lethality of the firearm, so it's restriction is not based on cosmetics. As far as grenades being restricted, that doesn't change anything. Especially seeing as it would be fairly easy to get a hold of black market grenades.

I actually don't have an emotional bais against firearms. Or any bias against firearms. I just enjoy argueing against your black-and-white oversimplified view of a complicated issue.

Following your logic, should cocaine and heroine be legal? After all, why punish the non-addicted and the non-terroristic drug cartels?

Read the US v. Emerson case decision. Section V and footnotes 9-11 gives you a nice overview of the various stances on the constitutionality of gun control and their various authors. Not to mention, even US v. Miller supports at leats limited gun control. On top of that, US v. Emerson was the first district court to agree with your point of view. It's not a definite black-and-white issue.

So far that is the only arguement that you've defended consistently.

You might want to consider taking your own advice on this one.

I'm not going to waste my time. I can present you with fact based arguements, but you'll answer about why my facts aren't as good as your facts. Facts can be twisted to defend pretty much anything, and you know it. So far your only arguements have been purely theoretical/legal and have yet to post any solid facts on the issue. My arguements have been purely theory based, let's just leave it at that. Facts can be twisted to show anything, the facts aren't really what's at stake here, it's the theory.

I was unaware that there was only one book on Constitutinal Law. Interesting. Which author are you refering to?

Again, read footnotes 9-11 on the US v. Emerson decision, it provides a decent bibliography of the Collective and Sophisticated Collective Models.

US v. Miller ring a bell? They don't support the kind of gun control I'm advocating, but they don't support your view either.

Guns don't make governments answer to the people. Do you think that the government really even considers that before they take an action? Can you show me any instance where a congressman has said on the floor of the Senate/House "Hey, we shouldn't do this, it might cause a revolt." Ever. Even the Civil War, did the threat of violence stop them? Nope.

As far as making it harder, if you can organize a rebellion by the time you get out of the organization stage, and by the time your group would be capable of taking any real action anyway, regardless of the level of gun control, getting guns would be very easy for you. It wouldn't be a major obstacle. Just look at the number of guns traded illegaly as is.

You don't know anything about me, yet you keep making statements about my views/beleifs/ and lifestyle (I think you called me a sheep...) yet so far you've been consistently wrong.

Determing if something outweighs something eles is a subjective exercise. As such, you saying that the good of guns outweighs the bad is not objective. It's a matter or opinion, and as such, is not a matter of intelligence.

Of course, it doesn't take a genuis to realize if there are less legimately owned guns out there, than there will be fewer guns to be stolen to enter into the illegal gun trade. Not to mention, how many legally owned guns are used in crimes every year?

Again, this is your opinion. It is not objective. The person may be the one actually shooting some one, but if they don't have a gun it's going to make it much harder.

For instance, how many people would use a howitizer to shell their neighbor's house? Probably not many, but more than you would like to think about. Of course, with their limit availaibility it makes it much harder to do so, thus making those people less dangerous.

Only an arrogant or stupid person would think that repeated insults would actually persuade some one to their point of view. To be honest, you're arrogance just makes me want to prove you wrong even more. You would be able to build up more support in the anti-gun lobby and maybe actually change some minds if you would be willing to concede that they were not complete idiots.

Footnotes 9-11
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/5th/9910331cr0.html

History: Try again, US v. Miller, and every district court decision before US v. Emerson disagree with you. Sorry.

Facts: Don't mean anything, they can be twisted to mean anything. Besides, you've yet to present any solid facts.

Law: Only since US v. Emerson, and it's only been five years since that took place and it's entirely possible that it will be overturned in the future. The law is pretty fickle like that.

Logic: Everybody claims this. Do you think that people just wake up one morning and say "Gee, I hate guns now." No, the arrive at their point of view, logically, and in accordance with their own value system. Just because your "logic" doesn't argee with their "logic" that doesn't mean they are just using emotion. Of course, it's pretty clear from your heated defense of guns that you have a lot of emotion tied up in this issue as well. Of course, emotion is involved in all human endeavors, so to say that people are thinking with emotion is really just a truism. It's not a real arguement.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

The modern liberal doesn't want guns in the open because they might end up being used against them when their socialist agenda drives the US into chaos.

__________________

Do you agree with this position: If someone chooses not keep and bear arms, the well regulated part of the second amendment doesn't apply; otherwise, anyone who chooses to keep and bear arms should be well regulated according to the logic of the second amendment.

In other words, if someone chooses to keep and bear arms, the "well regulated" part of the second amendment applies.

If someone chooses not to keep and bear arms, then the "well regulated" part of the second amendment doesn't apply (is non functional, if and only if, someone chooses not to keep and bear arms.) Keep in mind that there is a 9th amendment concerning rights retained by the people.

Liberals aren't evil any more than conservatives are. They don't think about saving their asses after their socialist agenda drives the U.S. into chaos because they honestly beleive that their policies will help make the world a better place.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

No. There is no requirement for the individual citizens to be regulated at all. That would be the opposite of freedom.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost ev