Last edited by jamesrage; 02-18-13 at 05:19 PM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Now you lie. I NEVER said the features I discussed were merely cosmetic, other than commenting as I did after this in the message above.
Rather, you are running (again) into outer space trying to justify foolish statements as now you claim:
1. You completely don't care what makes firearms more deadly
2. You want civilians to shoot inaccurately
3. You want civilians to have little control over their firearm when shooting.
Rather, you just want to argue "cosmetics."
A .223 is a "cosmetic" and inferior similarity to a NATO 5.56. As another example of being "cosmetic." And another example of why the anti-gunners debate irrationally. You have to claim you don't care about deadliness, accuracy or firearm control to maintain your claim - thus making your 'gun control" issues nonsensical.
You are still failing.
Cosmetic | Define Cosmetic at Dictionary.com