9e4df7ed   
   XPost: alt.california, vegas.general, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, talk.politics.guns   
   From: maximusheadroom@gmx.com   
      
   In news:chine.bleu-C0095B.19091403022018@reader.eternal-september.org,   
   Siri Cruise  typed:   
      
   > In article <0u9c7dpqasb6n5sqaf3itlb3pso4stoec2@4ax.com>,   
   >  Klaus  Schadenfreude  wrote:   
      
   >>> So (a) Haig sold Paddock a few rounds of armor-piercing ammo,   
   >>> and lots of tracer ammo, and (b) Paddock didn't use either   
   >>> type of ammo in his attack?  This doesn't sound to me like   
   >>> much of a story.   
      
   >>> BTW, a bullet is only the projectile.  Ammunition or ammo   
   >>> is the complete cartridge consisting of the bullet, case,   
   >>> propellant and primer.  People including the article's   
   >>> author tend to confuse the two.   
      
   >> I liked the "'incendiary capsule" on their noses'" part especially.   
      
   > If selling sabots were illegal, he could be convicted of selling   
   > sabots whether you think sabots are dangerous or no, whether the   
   > sabots had been left home or no, whether the sabots had been   
   > incorporated in a round or no. The charge is Haig sold something the   
   > law said he wasn't allowed to sell....   
      
   For lack of a $30 Type 6 FFL.   
      
   > ... The trial will depend on whether the objects were illegal for sale...   
      
   They weren't.   
      
   > ... and whether Haig sold them.   
      
   Without paying Uncle Sugar for the privilege.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)